Statesmen  * 

Edited  iy 


JOHN  T.  MORSE,  JR, 


THE  ETHEL  CARR  PEACOCK 

MEMORIAL  COLLECTION 


Matris  amori  monumentum 


TRINITY  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 


DURHAM,  N.  C. 

1903 

Gift  of  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Dred  Peacock 


( 


American  Statesmen 


EDITED  BY 


JOHN  T.  MORSE,  JR. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/danielwebster01lodg 


tsim 


American  J>tategmen 


DANIEL  WEBSTER 


HENRY  CABOT  LODGE 


2.  5 (*  5 0 

BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 
(CJe  fitorsitoe  CamfrriDge 

1894 


Copyright,  1883, 

BT  HENRY  CABOT  LODGE. 

All  rights  reserved. 


A 

t 

ej 


The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 
Electrotyped  and  Printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  & Company. 


f 2 3,  Z 7 3 
W 5 7 g.U 
P 

I 

CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  L 

Childhood  and  Youth 1 

CHAPTER  H. 

Law  and  Politics  in  New  Hampshire  ....  34 

CHAPTER  HI. 

The  Dartmouth  College  Case.  — Mr.  Webster  as  a 
Lawyer 72 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Massachusetts  Convention  and  the  Plymouth 
Oration 110 

CHAPTER  V. 

Return  to  Congress 129 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Tariff  of  1828  and  the  Reply  to  Hayne  . 154 

CHAPTER  VH. 

The  Struggle  with  Jackson  and  the  Rise  of  the 
Whig  Party 205 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Secretary  of  State.  — The  Ashburton  Treaty 

2 S’  & S O 


241 


ri  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

PAGE 

Return  to  the  Senate.  — The  Seventh  of  March 


Speech 264 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Last  Years , . 333 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


CHAPTER  I. 

CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 

No  sooner  was  the  stout  Puritan  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts  firmly  planted  than  it  be- 
gan rapidly  to  throw  out  branches  in  all  directions. 
With  every  succeeding  year  the  long,  thin,  sinuous 
line  of  settlements  stretched  farther  and  farther 

Note.  — In  preparing  this  volume  I have  carefully  examined 
all  the  literature  contemporary  and  posthumous  relating  to  Mr. 
Webster.  I have  not  gone  beyond  the  printed  material,  of  which 
there  is  a vast  mass,  much  of  it  of  no  value,  but  which  contains 
all  and  more  than  is  needed  to  obtain  a correct  understanding  of 
the  man  and  of  his  public  and  private  life.  No  one  can  pretend 
to  write  a life  of  Webster  without  following  in  large  measure  the 
narrative  of  events  as  given  in  the  elaborate,  careful,  and  schol- 
arly biography  which  we  owe  to  Mr.  George  T.  Curtis.  In  many 
of  my  conclusions  I have  differed  widely  from  those  of  Mr.  Cur- 
tis, but  I desire  at  the  outset  to  acknowledge  fully  my  obligations 
to  him.  I have  sought  information  in  all  directions,  and  have  ob- 
tained some  fresh  material,  and,  as  I believe,  have  thrown  a new 
light  upon  certain  points,  but  this  does  not  in  the  least  diminish 
the  debt  which  I owe  to  the  ample  biography  of  Mr.  Curtis  in  re- 
gard to  the  details  as  well  as  the  general  outline  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
public  and  private  life. 

1 


2 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


away  to  the  northeast,  fringing  the  wild  shores  oi 
the  Atlantic  with  houses  and  farms  gathered  to- 
gether at  the  mouths  or  on  the  banks  of  the  riv- 
ers, and  with  the  homes  of  hardy  fishermen  which 
clustered  in  little  groups  beneath  the  shelter  of 
the  rocky  headlands.  The  extension  of  these 
plantations  was  chiefly  along  the  coast,  but  there 
was  also  a movement  up  the  river  courses  toward 
the  west  and  into  the  interior.  The  line  of  north- 
eastern settlements  began  first  to  broaden  in  this 
way  very  slowly  but  still  steadily  from  the  planta- 
tions at  Portsmouth  and  Dover,  which  were  nearly 
coeval  with  the  flourishing  towns  of  the  Bay. 
These  settlements  beyond  the  Massachusetts  line 
all  had  one  common  and  marked  chai'acteristic. 
They  were  all  exposed  to  Indian  attack  from  the 
earliest  days  down  to  the  period  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. Long  after  the  dangers  of  Indian  raids  had 
become  little  more  than  a tradition  to  the  popu- 
lous  and  flourishing  communities  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  the  towns  and  villages  of  Maine  and  New 
Hampshire  continued  to  be  the  outposts  of  a dark 
and  bloody  border  land.  French  and  Indian  war- 
fare with  all  its  attendant  horrors  was  the  normal 
condition  during  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Even  after  the  destruction  of  the  Jesuit  missions, 
every  war  in  Europe  was  the  signal  for  the  ap- 
pearance of  Frenchmen  and  savages  in  northeast- 
ern New  England,  where  their  course  was  marked 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


3 


by  rapine  and  slaughter,  and  lighted  by  the  flames 
of  burning  Tillages.  The  people  thus  assailed 
were  not  slow  in  taking  frequent  and  thorough 
vengeance,  and  so  the  conflict,  with  rare  intermis- 
sions, went  on  until  the  power  of  France  was  de- 
stroyed, and  the  awful  danger  from  the  north, 
which  had  hung  over  the  land  for  nearly  a cen- 
tury, was  finally  extinguished. 

The  people  who  waged  this  fierce  war  and  man- 
aged to  make  headway  in  despite  of  it  were  en- 
gaged at  the  same  time  in  a conflict  with  nature 
which  was  hardly  less  desperate.  The  soil,  even 
in  the  most  favored  places,  was  none  of  the  best, 
and  the  predominant  characteristic  of  New  Hamp- 
shire was  the  great  rock  formation  which  has 
given  it  the  name  of  the  Granite  State.  Slowly 
and  painfully  the  settlers  made  their  way  back 
into  the  country,  seizing  on  every  fertile  spot,  and 
wringing  subsistence  and  even  a certain  prosper- 
ity from  a niggardly  soil  and  a harsh  climate. 
Their  little  hamlets  crept  onward  toward  the  base 
of  those  beautiful  hills  which  have  now  become 
one  of  the  favorite  play-grounds  of  America,  but 
which  then  frowned  grimly  even  in  summer,  dark 
with  trackless  forests,  and  for  the  larger  part  of 
the  year  were  sheeted  with  the  glittering,  untram- 
pled snow  from  which  they  derive  their  name. 
Stern  and  strong  with  the  force  of  an  unbroken 
wilderness,  they  formed  at  all  times  a forbidding 
background  to  the  sparse  settlements  in  the  val- 
leys and  on  the  seashore. 


4 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


This  life  of  constant  battle  with  nature  and 
with  the  savages,  this  work  of  wresting  a subsist- 
ence from  the  unwilling  earth  while  the  hand  was 
always  armed  against  a subtle  and  cruel  foe,  had, 
of  course,  a marked  effect  upon  the  people  who 
endured  it.  That,  under  such  circumstances,  men 
should  have  succeeded  not  only  in  gaining  a liveli- 
hood, but  should  have  attained  also  a certain  meas- 
ure of  prosperity,  established  a free  government, 
founded  schools  and  churches,  and  built  up  a 
small  but  vigorous  and  thriving  commonwealth,  is 
little  short  of  marvellous.  A race  which  could  do 
this  had  an  enduring  strength  of  character  which 
was  sure  to  make  itself  felt  through  many  genera- 
tions, not  only  on  their  ancestral  soil,  but  in  every 
region  where  they  wandered  in  search  of  a fortune 
denied  to  them  at  home.  The  people  of  New 
Hampshire  were  of  the  English  Puritan  stock. 
They  were  the  borderers  of  New  England,  and 
were  among  the  hardiest  and  boldest  of  their  race. 
Their  fierce  battle  for  existence  during  nearly  a 
century  and  a half  left  a deep  impress  upon  them. 
Although  it  did  not  add  new  ti’aits  to  their  char- 
acter, it  sti’engthened  and  developed  many  of  the 
qualities  which  chiefly  distinguished  the  Puritan 
Englishman.  These  borderers,  from  lack  of  oppor- 
tunity, were  ruder  than  their  more  favored  breth- 
ren to  the  south,  but  they  were  also  more  persist- 
ent, more  tenacious,  and  more  adventurous.  They 
were  a vigorous,  bold,  unforgiving,  fighting  race, 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH.  5 

hard  and  stern  even  beyond  tbe  ordinary  stand- 
ard of  Puritanism. 

Among  the  Puritans  who  settled  in  New  Hamp- 
shire about  tbe  year  1636,  during  the  great  emi- 
gration which  preceded  the  Long  Parliament,  was 
one  bearing  the  name  of  Thomas  Webster.  He 
was  said  to  be  of  Scotch  extraction,  but  was,  if 
this  be  true,  undoubtedly  of  the  Lowland  or  Saxon 
Scotch  as  distinguished  from  the  Gaels  of  the 
Highlands.  He  was,  at  all  events,  a Puritan  of 
English  race,  and  his  name  indicates  that  his  pro- 
genitors were  sturdy  mechanics  or  handicraftsmen. 
This  Thomas  Webster  had  numerous  descendants, 
who  scattered  through  New  Hampshire  to  earn  a 
precarious  living,  found  settlements,  and  fight  In- 
dians. In  Kingston,  in  the  year  1739,  was  born 
one  of  this  family  named  Ebenezer  .Webster^ 
The  struggle  for  existence  was  so  hard  for  this 
particular  scion  of  the  Webster  stock,  that  he  was 
obliged  in  boyhood  to  battle  for  a living  and  pick 
up  learning  as  he  best  might  by  the  sole  aid  of  a 
naturally  vigorous  mind.  He  came  of  age  during 
the  great  French  war,  and  about  1760  enlisted  in 
the  then  famous  corps  known  as  “Rogers’s  Ran- 
gers.” In  the  dangers  and  the  successes  of  des- 
perate frontier  fighting,  the  “ Rangers  ” had  no 
equal ; and  of  their  hard  and  perilous  experience 
in  the  wilderness,  in  conflict  with  Indians  and 
Frenchmen,  Ebenezer  Webster,  strong  in  body 
and  daring  in  temperament,  had  his  full  share. 


6 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


When  the  war  closed,  the  young  soldier  and  In- 
dian fighter  had  time  to  look  about  him  for  a 
home.  As  might  have  been  expected,  he  clung 
to  the  frontier  to  which  he  was  accustomed,  and 
in  the  year  1763  settled  in  the  northernmost  part 
of  the  town  of  Salisbury.  Here  he  built  a log- 
house,  to  which,  in  the  following  year,  he  brought 
his  first  wife,  and  here  he  began  his  career  as  a 
farmer.  At  that  time  there  was  nothing  civilized 
between  him  and  the  French  settlements  of  Can- 
ada. The  wilderness  stretched  away  from  his 
door  an  ocean  of  forest  unbroken  by  any  white 
man’s  habitation  ; and  in  these  primeval  woods, 
although  the  war  was  ended  and  the  French  power 
overthrown,  there  still  lurked  roving  bands  of 
savages,  suggesting  the  constant  possibilities  of 
a midnight  foray  or  a noonday  ambush,  with 
their  accompaniments  of  murder  and  pillage.  It 
was  a fit  home,  however,  for  such  a man  as  Eben- 
ezer  Webster.  He  was  a borderer  in  the  fullest 
sense  in  a commonwealth  of  borderers.  He  was, 
too,  a splendid  specimen  of  the  New  England 
race  ; a true  descendant  of  ancestors  who  had 
been  for  generations  yeomen  and  pioneers.  Tall, 
large,  dark  of  hair  and  eyes,  in  the  rough  world 
xn  which  he  found  himself  he  had  been  thrown  at 
once  upon  his  own  resources  without  a day’s 
schooling,  and  compelled  to  depend  on  his  own 
innate  force  of  sense  and  character  for  success. 
He  had  had  a full  experience  of  desperate  fighting 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


7 


with  Frenchmen  and  Indians,  and,  the  war  over, 
he  had  returned  to  his  native  town  with  his  hard- 
won  rank  of  captain.  Then  he  had  married,  and 
had  established  his  home  upon  the  frontier,  where 
he  remained  battling  against  the  grim  desolation 
of  the  wilderness  and  of  the  winter,  and  against 
all  the  obstacles  of  soil  and  climate,  with  the  same 
hardy  bravery  with  which  he  had  faced  the  Indi- 
ans. After  ten  years  of  this  life,  in  1774,  his  wife 
died  and  within  a twelvemonth  he  married  again. 

Soon  after  this  second  marriage  the  alarm  of 
war  with  England  sounded,  and  among  the  first  to 
respond  was  the  old  ranger  and  Indian  fighter, 
Ebenezer  Webster.  In  the  town  which  had 
grown  up  near  his  once  solitary  dwelling  he  raised 
a company  of  two  hundred  men,  and  marched  at 
their  head,  a splendid  looking  leader,  dark,  mas- 
sive, and  tall,  to  join  the  forces  at  Boston.  We 
get  occasional  glimpses  of  this  vigorous  figure  dur- 
ing the  war.  At  Dorohegter.  Washington  con- 
sulted him  about  the  state  of  feeling  in  New 
Hampshire.  At  Bennington,  we  catch  sight  of 
him  among  the  first  who  scaled  the  breastworks, 
and  again  coming  out  of  the  battle,  his  swarthy 
skin  so  blackened  wdth  dust  and  gunpowder  that 
he  could  scarcely  be  recognized.  We  hear  of  him 
once  more  at  West  Point,  just  after  Arnold’s  trea- 
son, on  guard  before  the  general’s  tent,  and  Wash- 
ington says  to  him,  “ Captain  Webster,  I believe 
I can  trust  you.”  That  was  what  everybody  seems 


8 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


to  have  felt  about  this  strong,  silent,  uneducated 
man.  His  neighbors  trusted  him.  They  gave 
him  every  office  in  their  gift,  and  finally  he  was 
made  judge  of  the  local  court.  In  the  intervals  of 
his  toilsome  and  adventurous  life  he  had  picked  up 
a little  book-learning,  but  the  lack  of  more  barred 
the  way  to  the  higher  honors  which  would  other- 
wise have  been  easily  his.  There  were  splendid 
sources  of  strength  in  this  man,  the  outcome  of 
such  a race,  from  which  his  children  could  draw. 
He  was,  to  begin  with,  a magnificent  animal,  and 
had  an  imposing  bodily  presence  and  appearance. 
He  had  courage,  energy,  and  tenacity,  all  in  high 
degree.  He  was  business-like,  a man  of  few 
words,  determined,  and  efficient.  He  had  a great 
capacity  for  affection  and  self-sacrifice,  noble  as- 
pirations, a vigorous  mind,  and,  above  all,  a strong, 
pure  character  which  invited  trust.  Force  of  will, 
force  of  mind,  force  of  character  ; these  were  the 
three  predominant  qualities  in  Ebenezer  Webster. 
His  life  forms  the  necessary  introduction  to  that 
of  his  celebrated  son,  and  it  is  well  worth  study, 
because  we  can  learn  from  it  how  much  that  son 
got  from  a father  so  finely  endowed,  and  how  far 
he  profited  by  such  a rich  inheritance. 

By  his  first  wife,  Ebenezer  Webster  had  five 
children.  By  his  second  wife,  Abigail  Eastman, 
a woman  of  good  sturdy  New  Hampshire  stock, 
he  had  likewise  five.  Of  these,  the  second  son 
and  fourth  child  was  born  on  the  eighteenth  of 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


9 


January,  1782,  and  was  christened  Daniel.  The 
infant  was  a delicate  and  rather  sickly  little  being. 
Some  cheerful  neighbors  predicted  after  inspection 
that  it  would  not  live  long,  and  the  poor  mother, 
overhearing  them,  caught  the  child  to  her  bosom 
and  wept  over  it.  She  little  dreamed  of  the  iron 
constitution  hidden  somewhere  in  the  small  frail 
body,  and  still  less  of  all  the  glory  and  sorrow  to 
which  her  baby  was  destined. 

For  many  years,  although  the  boy  disappointed 
the  village  Cassandras  by  living,  he  continued 
weak  and  delicate.  Manual  labor,  which  began 
very  early  with  the  children  of  New  Hampshire 
farmers,  was  out  of  the  question  in  his  case,  and 
so  Daniel  was  allowed  to  devote  much  of  his  time 
to  play,  for  which  he  showed  a decided  aptitude. 
It  was  play  of  the  best  sort,  in  the  woods  and 
fields,  where  he  learned  to  love  nature  and  natural 
objects,  to  wonder  at  floods,  to  watch  the  habits 
of  fish  and  birds,  and  to  acquire  a keen  taste  for 
field  sports.  His  companion  was  an  old  British 
sailor,  who  carried  the  child  on  his  back,  rowed 
with  him  on  the  river,  taught  him  the  angler’s  art, 
and,  best  of  all,  poured  into  his  delighted  ear  end- 
less stories  of  an  adventurous  life,  of  Admiral 
Byng  and  Lord  George  Germaine,  of  Minden  and 
Gibraltar,  of  Prince  Ferdinand  and  General  Gage, 
of  Bunker  Hill,  and  finally  of  the  American  armies, 
to  which  the  soldier-sailor  had  deserted.  The  boy 
repaid  this  devoted  friend  by  reading  the  newspa- 


10 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


pers  to  him  ; and  he  tells  us  in  his  autobiography 
that  he  could  not  remember  when  he  did  not 
read,  so  early  was  he  taught  by  his  mother  and 
sisters,  in  true  New  England  fashion.  At  a very 
early  age  he  began  to  go  to  school  ; sometimes  in 
his  native  town,  sometimes  in  another,  as  the  dis- 
trict school  moved  from  place  to  place.  The  mas- 
ters who  taught  in  these  schools  knew  nothing  but 
the  barest  rudiments,  and  even  some  of  those  im- 
perfectly. One  of  them  who  lived  to  a great  age, 
enlightened  perhaps  by  subsequent  events,  said 
that  Webster  had  great  rapidity  of  acquisition 
and  was  the  quickest  boy  in  school.  He  certainly 
proved  himself  the  possessor  of  a very  retentive 
memory,  for  when  this  pedagogue  offered  a jack- 
knife as  a reward  to  the  boy  who  should  be  able  to 
recite  the  greatest  number  of  verses  from  the  Bi- 
ble, Webster,  on  the  following  day,  when  his  turn 
came,  arose  and  reeled  off  verses  until  the  master 
cried  “enough,”  and  handed  him  the  coveted 
prize.  Another  of  his  instructors  kept  a small 
store,  and  from  him  the  boy  bought  a handker- 
chief on  which  was  printed  the  Constitution  just 
adopted,  and,  as  he  read  everything  and  remem- 
bered much,  he  read  that  famous  instrument  to 
which  he  was  destined  to  give  so  much  of  his  time 
and  thought.  When  Mr.  Webster  said  that  he 
read  better  than  any  of  his  masters,  he  was  proba- 
bly right.  The  power  of  expression  and  of  speech 
and  readiness  in  reply  were  his  greatest  natural 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


11 


gifts,  and,  however  much  improved  by  cultiva- 
tion, were  born  in  him.  His  talents  were  known 
in  the  neighborhood,  and  the  passing  teamsters, 
while  they  watered  their  hoi’ses,  delighted  to  get 
“ Webster's  bojq”  with  his  delicate  look  and  great 
dark  eyes,  to  come  out  beneath  the  shade  of  the 
trees  and  read  the  Bible  to  them  with  all  the  force 
of  his  childish  eloquence.  He  describes  his  own 
existence  at  that  time  with  perfect  accuracy.  “ I 
read  what  I could  get  to  read,  went  to  school  when 
I could,  and  when  not  at  school,  was  a farmer’s 
youngest  boy,  not  good  for  much  for  want  of 
health  and  strength,  but  expected  to  do  some- 
thing.” That  something  consisted  generally  in 
tending  the  saw-mill,  but  the  reading  went  on 
even  thei’e.  He  would  set  a log,  and  while  it  was 
going  through  would  devour  a book.  There  was 
a small  circulating  library  in  the  village,  and 
Webster  read  everything  it  contained,  committing 
most  of  the  contents  of  the  precious  volumes  to 
memory,  for  books  were  so  scarce  that  he  believed 
this  to  be  their  chief  purpose. 

In  the  year  1791  the  brave  old  soldier,  Ebenezer 
Webster,  was  made  a judge  of  the  local  court,  and 
thus  got  a salary  of  three  or  four  hundred  dollars 
a year.  This  accession  of  wealth  turned  his 
thoughts  at  once  toward  that  education  which  he 
had  missed,  and  he  determined  that  he  would 
give  to  his  children  what  he  had  irretrievably  lost 
himself.  Two  years  later  he  disclosed  his  pur- 


12 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


pose  to  bis  son,  one  hot  day  in  the  hay-field,  with 
a manly  regret  for  his  own  deficiencies  and  a touch- 
ing pathos  which  the  boy  never  forgot.  The  next 
spring  his  father  took  Daniel  to  Exeter  Academy. 
This  was  the  boy’s  first  contact  with  the  world,  and 
there  was  the  usual  sting  which  invariably  accom- 
panies that  meeting.  His  school-mates  laughed  at 
his  rustic  dress  and  manners,  and  the  poor  little 
farm  lad  felt  it  bitterly.  The  natural  and  uncon- 
scious power  by  which  he  had  delighted  the  team- 
sters was  stifled,  and  the  greatest  orator  of  modern 
times  never  could  summon  sufficient  courage  to 
stand  up  and  recite  verses  before  these  Exeter 
school-boys.  Intelligent  masters,  however,  per- 
ceived something  of  what  was  in  the  lad,  and  gave 
him  a kindly  encouragement.  He  rose  rapidly  in 
the  classes,  and  at  the  end  of  nine  months  his  father 
took  him  away  in  order  to  place  him  as  a pupil 
with  a neighboring  clergyman.  As  they  drove 
over,  about  a month  later,  to  Boscawen,  where 
Dr.  Wood,  the  future  preceptor,  lived,  Ebenezer 
Webster  imparted  to  his  son  the  full  extent  of  his 
plan,  which  was  to  end  in  a college  education. 
The  joy  at  the  accomplishment  of  his  dearest  and 
most  fervent  wish,  mingled  with  a full  sense  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  sacrifice  and  of  the  generosity 
of  his  father,  overwhelmed  the  boy.  Always  affec- 
tionate and  susceptible  of  strong  emotion,  these 
tidings  overcame  him.  He  laid  his  head  upon  his 
father’s  shoulder  and  wept. 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


13 


With  Dr.  Wood  Webster  remained  only  six 
months.  He  went  home  on  one  occasion,  but  hay- 
ing was  not  to  his  tastes.  He  found  it  “dull  and 
lonesome,”  and  preferred  rambling  in  the  woods 
with  his  sister  in  search  of  berries,  so  that  his  in- 
dulgent father  sent  him  back  to  his  studies.  With 
the  help  of  Dr.  Wood  in  Latin,  and  another  tutor 
in  Greek,  he  contrived  to  enter  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege in  August,  1797.  He  was,  of  course,  hastily 
and  poorly  prepared.  He  knew  something  of 
Latin,  very  little  of  Greek,  and  next  to  nothing 
of  mathematics,  geography,  or  history.  He  had 
devoured  everything  in  the  little  libraries  of  Salis- 
bury and  Boscawen,  and  thus  had  acquired  a des- 
ultory knowledge  of  a limited  amount  of  English 
literature,  including  Addison,  Pope,  Watts,  and 
“ Don  Quixote.”  But  however  little  he  knew, 
the  gates  of  learning  were  open,  and  he  had  en- 
tered the  precincts  of  her  temple,  feeling  dimly 
but  surely  the  first  pulsations  of  the  mighty  in- 
tellect with  which  he  was  endowed. 

“ In  those  boyish  days,”  he  wrote  many  years 
afterwards,  “ there  were  two  things  which  I did 
dearly  love,  reading  and  playing,  — passions  which 
did  not  cease  to  struggle  when  boyhood  was  over, 
(have  they  yet  altogether?)  and  in  regard  to 
which  neither  cita  mors  nor  the  victoria  Iceta  could 
be  said  of  either.”  In  truth  they  did  not  cease, 
these  two  strong  passions.  One  was  of  the  head, 
the  other  of  the  heart ; one  typified  the  intellect- 


14 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ual,  the  other  the  animal  strength  of  the  boy's 
nature  ; and  the  two  contending  forces  went  witli 
him  to  the  end.  The  childhood  of  Webster  has 
a deep  interest  which  is  by  no  means  usual.  Great 
men  in  their  earliest  years  are  generally  much  like 
other  boys,  despite  the  efforts  of  their  biographers 
to  the  contrary  If  they  are  not,  they  are  very 
apt  to  be  little  prigs  like  the  second  Pitt,  full  of 
“ wise  saws  and  modern  instances.”  Webster  was 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  He  was  simple, 
natural,  affectionate,  and  free  from  pertness  or 
precocity.  At  the  same  time  there  was  an  in- 
nate power  which  impressed  all  those  who  ap- 
proached him  without  their  knowing  exactly  why, 
and  there  was  abundant  evidence  of  uncommon 
talents.  Webster’s  boyish  days  are  pleasant  to 
look  upon,  but  they  gain  a peculiar  lustre  from 
the  noble  character  of  his  father,  the  deep  solici- 
tude of  his  mother,  and  the  generous  devotion  and 
self-sacrifice  of  both  parents.  There  was  in  this 
something  prophetic.  Every  one  about  the  boy 
was  laboring  and  sacrificing  for  him  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  this  was  not  without  its  effect  upon 
his  character.  A little  anecdote  which  was  cur- 
rent in  Boston  many  years  ago  condenses  the 
whole  situation.  The  story  may  be  true  or  false, 
— it  is  very  probably  unfounded,  — but  it  con- 
tains an  essential  truth  and  illustrates  the  char- 
acter of  the  boy  and  the  atmosphere  in  which  he 
grew  up.  Ezekiel,  the  oldest  son,  and  Daniel 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


15 


were  allowed  on  one  occasion  to  go  to  a fair  in  a 
neighboring  town,  and  each  was  furnished  with 
a little  money  from  the  slender  store  at  home. 
When  they  returned  in  the  evening,  Daniel  was 
radiant  with  enjoyment;  Ezekiel  rather  silent. 
Their  mother  inquired  as  to  their  adventures,  and 
finally  asked  Daniel  what  he  did  with  his  money. 
“ Spent  it,”  was  the  reply.  “ And  what  did  you 
do  with  yours,  Ezekiel  ? ” “ Lent  it  to  Daniel.” 

That  answer  sums  up  the  story  of  Webster’s  home 
life  in  childhood.  Every  one  was  giving  or  lend- 
ing to  Daniel  of  their  money,  their  time,  their 
activity,  their  love  and  affection.  This  petting 
was  partly  due  to  Webster’s  delicate  health,  but 
it  was  also  in  great  measure  owing  to  his  nature. 
He  was  one  of  those  rare  and  fortunate  beings  who 
without  exertion  draw  to  themselves  the  devotion 
of  other  people,  and  are  always  surrounded  by  men 
and  women  eager  to  do  and  to  suffer  for  them. 
The  boy  accepted  all  that  was  showered  upon  him, 
not  without  an  obvious  sense  that  it  was  his  due. 
He  took  it  in  the  royal  spirit  which  is  character- 
istic of  such  natures ; but  in  those  childish  days 
when  laughter  and  tears  came  readily,  he  repaid 
the  generous  and  sacrificing  love  with  the  warm 
and  affectionate  gratitude  of  an  earnest  nature 
and  a naturally  loving  heart.  He  was  never  cold, 
or  selfish,  or  designing.  Others  loved  him,  and 
sacrificed  to  him,  but  he  loved  them  in  return  and 
appreciated  their  sacrifices.  These  conditions  of 


16 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


his  early  days  must,  however,  have  had  an  effect 
upon  his  disposition  and  increased  his  belief  in  the 
fitness  of  having  the  devotion  of  other  people  as 
one  of  his  regal  rights  and  privileges,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  it  must  have  helped  to  expand  his  af- 
fections and  give  warmth  to  every  generous  feel- 
ing. 

The  passions  for  reading  and  play  went  with 
him  to  Dartmouth,  the  little  New  Hampshire  col- 
lege of  which  he  was  always  so  proud  and  so  fond. 
The  instruction  there  was  of  good  quality  enough, 
but  it  was  meagre  in  quantity  and  of  limited 
range,  compared  to  what  is  offered  by  most  good 
high  schools  of  the  present  day.  In  the  reminis- 
cences of  his  fellow -students  there  is  abundant 
material  for  a picture  of  Webster  at  that  time. 
He  was  recognized  by  all  as  the  foremost  man  in 
the  college,  as  easily  first,  with  no  second.  Yet 
at  the  same  time  Mr.  Webster  was  neither  a stu- 
dent nor  a scholar  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  words. 
He  read  voraciously  all  the  English  literature  he 
could  lay  his  hands  on,  and  remembered  every- 
thing he  read.  He  achieved  familiarity  with  Latin 
and  with  Latin  authors,  and  absorbed  a great  deal 
of  history.  He  was  the  best  general  scholar  in  the 
college.  He  was  not  only  not  deficient  but  he 
showed  excellence  at  recitation  in  every  branch  of 
study.  He  could  learn  anything  if  he  tried.  But 
with  all  this  he  never  gained  more  than  a smat- 
tering of  Greek  and  still  less  of  mathematica 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


17 


because  tliose  studies  require,  for  anything  more 
than  a fair  proficiency,  a love  of  knowledge  for 
its  own  sake,  a zeal  for  learning  incompatible  with 
indolence,  and  a close,  steady,  and  disinterested  at- 
tention. These  were  not  the  characteristics  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  mind.  He  had  a marvellous  power  of 
rapid  acquisition,  but  he  learned  nothing  unless 
he  liked  the  subject  and  took  pleasure  in  it  or  else 
was  compelled  to  the  task.  This  is  not  the  stuff 
from  which  the  real  student,  with  an  original  or 
inquiring  mind,  is  made.  It  is  only  fair  to  say 
that  this  estimate,  drawn  from  the  opinions  of  his 
fellow-students,  coincided  with  his  own,  for  he  was 
too  large-minded  and  too  clear-headed  to  have  any 
small  vanity  or  conceit  in  judging  himself.  He 
said  soon  after  he  left  college,  and  with  perfect 
truth,  that  his  scholarship  was  not  remarkable,  nor 
equal  to  what  he  was  credited  with.  He  ex- 
plained his  reputation  after  making  this  confession 
by  saying  that  he  read  carefully,  meditated  on 
what  he  had  read,  and  retained  it  so  that  on  any 
subject  he  was  able  to  tell  all  he  knew  to  the 
best  advantage,  and  was  careful  never  to  go  be- 
yond his  depth.  There  is  no  better  analysis  of 
Mr.  Webster’s  strongest  qualities  of  mind  than 
this  made  by  himself  in  reference  to  his  college 
standing.  Rapid  acquisition,  quick  assimilation  of 
ideas,  an  iron  memory,  and  a wonderful  power  of 
stating  and  displaying  all  he  knew  characterized 
him  then  as  in  later  life.  The  extent  of  his  knowl- 
2 


18 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


edge  and  the  range  of  his  mind,  not  the  depth  or 
soundness  of  his  scholarship,  were  the  traits  which 
his  companions  remembered.  One  of  them  says 
that  they  often  felt  that  he  had  a more  extended 
understanding  than  the  tutors  to  whom  he  recited, 
and  this  was  probably  true.  The  Faculty  of  the 
college  recognized  in  Webster  the  most  remarka- 
ble man  who  had  ever  come  among  them,  but  they 
could  not  find  good  grounds  to  award  him  the 
prizes,  which,  by  his  standing  among  his  fellows, 
ought  by  every  rule  to  have  been  at  his  feet.  He 
had  all  the  promise  of  a great  man,  but  he  was 
not  a fine  scholar. 

He  was  studious,  punctual,  and  regular  in  all 
his  habits.  He  was  so  dignified  that  his  friends 
would  as  soon  have  thought  of  seeing  President 
Wheelock  indulge  in  boyish  disorders  as  of  seeing 
him.  But  with  all  his  dignity  and  seriousness 
of  talk  and  manner,  he  was  a thoroughly  genial 
companion,  full  of  humor  and  fun  and  agreeable 
conversation.  He  had  few  intimates,  but  many 
friends.  He  was  generally  liked  as  well  as  uni- 
versally admired,  was  a leader  in  the  college  so- 
cieties, active  and  successful  in  sports,  simple, 
hearty,  unaffected,  without  a touch  of  priggish- 
ness and  with  a wealth  of  wholesome  animal 
spirits. 

But  in  these  college  days,  besides  the  vague 
feeling  of  students  and  professors  that  they  had 
among  them  a very  remarkable  man,  there  is  a 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


19 


clear  indication  that  the  qualities  which  after- 
wards raised  him  to  fame  and  power  were  already 
apparent,  and  affected  the  little  world  about  him. 
All  his  contemporaries  of  that  time  speak  of  hrs 
eloquence.  The  gift  of  speech,  the  unequalled 
power  of  statement,  which  were  born  in  him,  just 
like  the  musical  tones  of  his  voice,  could  not  be 
repressed.  There  was  no  recurrence  of  the  diffi- 
dence of  Exeter.  His  native  genius  led  him  irre- 
sistibly along  the  inevitable  path.  He  loved  to 
speak,  to  hold  the  attention  of  a listening  audience. 
He  practised  off-hand  speaking,  but  he  more  com- 
monly prepared  himself  by  meditating  on  his  sub- 
ject and  making  notes,  which,  however,  he  never 
used.  He  would  enter  the  class-room  or  debating 
society  and  begin  in  a low  voice  and  almost  sleepy 
manner,  and  would  then  gradually  rouse  himself 
like  a lion,  and  pour  forth  his  words  until  he  had 
his  hearers  completely  under  his  control,  and  glow- 
ing with  enthusiasm. 

We  see  too,  at  this  time,  the  first  evidence  of 
that  other  great  gift  of  bountiful  nature  in  his 
commanding  presence.  He  was  then  tall  and  thin, 
with  high  cheek  bones  and  dark  skin,  but  he  was 
still  impressive.  The  boys  about  him  never  for- 
got the  look  of  his  deep-set  eyes,  or  the  sound  of 
the  solemn  tones  of  his  voice,  his  dignity  of  mien, 
and  his  absorption  in  his  subject.  Above  all  they 
were  conscious  of  something  indefinable  which 
conveyed  a sense  of  greatness.  It  is  not  usual  to 


20 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dwell  so  much  upon  mere  physical  attributes  and 
appearance,  but  we  must  recur  to  them  again  and 
again,  for  Mr.  Webster’s  personal  presence  was 
one  of  the  great  elements  of  his  success ; it  was 
the  fit  companion  and  even  a part  of  his  genius, 
and  was  the  cause  of  his  influence,  and  of  the  won- 
der and  admiration  which  followed  him,  as  much 
almost  as  anything  he  ever  said  or  did. 

To  Mr.  Webster’s  college  career  belong  the  first 
fruits  of  his  intellect.  He  edited,  during  one  year, 
a small  weekly  journal,  and  thus  eked  out  his  slen- 
der means.  Besides  his  strictly  editorial  labors, 
he  printed  some  short  pieces  of  his  own,  which 
have  vanished,  and  he  also  indulged  in  poetical 
effusions,  which  he  was  fond  of  sending  to  absent 
friends.  His  rhymes  are  without  any  especial 
character,  neither  much  better  nor  much  worse 
than  most  college  verses,  and  they  have  no  in- 
trinsic value  beyond  showing  that  their  author, 
whatever  else  he  might  be,  -was  no  poet.  But  in 
his  own  field  something  of  this  time,  having  a 
real  importance,  has  come  down  to  us.  The  fame 
of  his  youthful  eloquence,  so  far  beyond  anything 
ever  known  in  the  college,  was  noised  abroad,  and 
in  the  year  1800  the  citizens  of^ Hanover,  the  col- 
lege town,  asked  him  to  deliver  the  Fourth  of  July 
oration.  In  this  production,  which  was  thought  of 
sufficient  merit  to  deserve  printing,  Mr.  Webster 
sketched  rapidly  and  exultingly  the  course  of  the 
Revolution,  threw  in  a little  Federal  politics,  and 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


21 


eulogized  the  happy  system  of  the  new  Constitu- 
tion. Of  this  and  his  other  early  orations  he  al- 
ways spoke  with  a good  deal  of  contempt,  as  ex- 
amples of  bad  taste,  which  he  wished  to  have 
buried  and  forgotten.  Accordingly  his  wholesale 
admirers  and  supporters  who  have  done  most  of 
the  writing  about  him,  and  who  always  sneezed 
when  Mr.  Webster  took  snuff,  have  echoed  his 
opinions  about  these  youthful  productions,  and 
beyond  allowing  to  them  the  value  which  every- 
thing Websterian  has  for  the  ardent  worshipper, 
have  been  disposed  to  hurry  them  over  as  of  no 
moment.  Compared  to  the  reply  to  Hayne  or  the 
Plymouth  oration,  the  Hanover  speech  is,  of 
course,  a poor  and  trivial  thing.  Considered,  as 
it  ought  to  be,  by  itself  and  in  itself,  it  is  not  only 
of  great  interest  as  Mr.  Webster’s  first  utterance 
on  public  questions,  but  it  is  something  of  which 
he  had  no  cause  to  feel  ashamed.  The  sentiments 
are  honest,  elevated,  and  manly,  and  the  political 
doctrine  is  sound.  Mr.  Webster  was  then  a boy 
of  eighteen,  and  he  therefore  took  his  politics  from 
his  father  and  his  father’s  friends.  For  the  same 
reason  he  was  imitative  in  style  and  mode  of 
thought.  All  boys  of  that  age,  whether  geniuses 
or  not,  ai’e  imitative,  and  Mr.  Webster,  who  was 
never  profoundly  original  in  thought,  was  no  ex- 
ception to  the  rule.  He  used  the  style  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  then  in  its  decadence,  and 
very  florid,  inflated,  and  heavy  it  was.  Yet  his 


22 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


work  was  far  better  and  his  style  simpler  and 
moi’e  direct  than  that  which  was  in  fashion.  He 
indulged  in  a good  deal  of  patriotic  glorification. 
We  smile  at  his  boyish  Federalism  describing  Na- 
poleon as  “ the  gasconading  pilgrim  of  Egypt,” 
and  Columbia  as  “ seated  in  the  forum  of  nations, 
and  the  empires  of  the  world  amazed  at  the  bright 
effulgence  of  her  glory.”  These  sentences  are  the 
acme  of  fine  writing,  very  boyish  and  very  poor ; 
but  they  are  not  fair  examples  of  the  whole,  which 
is  much  simpler  and  more  direct  than  might  have 
been  expected.  Moreover,  the  thought  is  the 
really  important  thing.  We  see  plainly  that  the 
speaker  belongs  to  the  new  era  and  the  new 
generation  of  national  measures  and  nationally- 
minded  men.  There  is  no  colonialism  about  him. 
He  is  in  full  sympathy  with  the  Washingtonian 
policy  of  independence  in  our  foreign  relations 
and  of  complete  separation  from  the  affairs  of 
Europe.  But  the  main  theme  and  the  moving 
spirit  of  this  oration  are  most  important  of  all. 
The  boy  Webster  preached  love  of  country,  the 
grandeur  of  American  nationality,  fidelity  to  the 
Constitution  as  the  bulwark  of  nationality,  and 
the  necessity  and  the  nobility  of  the  union  of  the 
States ; and  that  was  the  message  which  the  man 
Webster  delivered  to  his  fellow-men.  The  endur- 
ing work  which  Mr.  Webster  did  in  the  world, 
and  his  meaning  and  influence  in  American  his- 
tory, are  all  summed  up  in  the  principles  enun- 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


23 


eiated  in  that  boyish  speech  at  Hanover.  The 
statement  of  the  great  principles  was  improved 
and  developed  until  it  towered  above  this  first  ex- 
pression as  Mont  Blanc  does  above  the  village  nes- 
tled at  its  foot,  but  the  essential  substance  never 
altered  in  the  least. 

Two  other  college  orations  have  been  preserved. 
One  is  a eulogy  on  a classmate  who  died  before 
finishing  his  course,  the  other  is  a discourse  on 
“ Opinion,”  delivered  before  the  society  of  the 
“ United  Fraternity.”  There  is  nothing  of  es- 
pecial moment  in  the  thought  of  either,  and  the 
improvement  in  style  over  the  Hanover  speech, 
though  noticeable,  is  not  very  marked.  In  the 
letters  of  that  period,  however,  amid  the  jokes 
and  fun,  we  see  that  Mr.  Webster  was  already 
following  his  natural  bent,  and  turning  his  at- 
tention to  politics.  He  manifests  the  same  spirit 
as  in  his  oration,  and  shows  occasionally  an  un- 
usual maturity  of  judgment.  His  criticism  of 
Hamilton’s  famous  letter  to  Adams,  to  take  the 
most  striking  instance,  is  both  keen  and  sound. 

After  taking  his  degree  in  due  course  in  1801, 
Mr.  Webster  returned  to  his  native  village,  and 
entered  the  office  of  a lawyer  next  door  to  his 
father’s  house,  where  he  began  the  study  of  the 
law  in  compliance  with  his  father's  wish,  but 
without  any  very  strong  inclination  of  his  own. 
Here  he  read  some  law  and  more  English  literature, 
and  passed  a good  deal  of  time  in  fishing  and  shoot- 


24 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ing.  Before  the  year  was  out,  however,  he  was 
obliged  to  drop  his  legal  studies  and  accept  the  post 
of  schoolmaster  in  the  little  town  of  Fryeburg, 
Maine. 

This  change  was  due  to  an  important  event  in 
the  Webster  family  which  had  occurred  some  time 
before.  The  affection  existing  between  Daniel 
and  his  elder  brother  Ezekiel  was  peculiarly  strong 
and  deep.  The  younger  and  more  fortunate  son, 
once  started  in  his  education,  and  knowing  the  de- 
sire of  his  elder  brother  for  the  same  advantages, 
longed  to  obtain  them  for  him.  One  night  in  va- 
cation, after  Daniel  had  been  two  years  at  Dart- 
mouth, the  two  brothers  discussed  at  length  the 
all-important  question.  The  next  day,  Daniel 
broached  the  matter  to  his  father.  The  judge 
was  taken  by  surprise.  He  was  laboring  already 
under  heavy  pecuniary  burdens  caused  by  the 
expenses  of  Daniel’s  education.  The  farm  was 
heavily  mortgaged,  and  Ebenezer  Webster  knew 
that  he  was  old  before  his  time  and  not  destined 
to  many  more  years  of  life.  With  the  perfect  and 
self-sacrificing  courage  which  he  always  showed, 
he  did  not  shrink  from  this  new  demand,  although 
Ezekiel  was  the  prop  and  mainstay  of  the  house. 
He  did  not  think  for  a moment  of  himself,  yet, 
while  he  gave  his  consent,  he  made  it  conditional 
on  that  of  the  mother  and  daughters  whom  he  felt 
he  was  soon  to  leave.  But  Mrs.  Webster  had  the 
same  spirit  as  her  husband.  She  was  ready  to  sell 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


25 


the  farm,  to  give  up  everything  for  the  boys,  pro- 
vided they  would  promise  to  care  in  the  future  for 
her  and  their  sisters.  More  utter  self-abnegation 
and  more  cheerful  and  devoted  self-sacrifice  have 
rarely  been  exhibited,  and  it  was  all  done  with  a 
simplicity  which  commands  our  reverence.  It 
was  more  than  should  have  been  asked,  and  a boy 
less  accustomed  than  Daniel  Webster  to  the  devo- 
tion of  others,  even  with  the  incentive  of  broth- 
erly love,  might  have  shrunk  from  making  the 
request.  The  promise  of  future  support  was  easily 
made,  but  the  hard  pinch  of  immediate  sacrifice 
had  to  be  borne  at  once.  The  devoted  family  gave 
themselves  up  to  the  struggle  to  secure  an  educa- 
tion for  the  two  boys,  and  for  years  they  did  battle 
with  debt  and  the  pressure  of  poverty.  Ezekiel 
began  his  studies  and  entered  college  the  year 
Daniel  graduated ; but  the  resources  were  run- 
ning low,  so  low  that  the  law  had  to  be  abandoned 
and  money  earned  without  delay  ; and  hence  the 
schoolmastership. 

At  no  time  in  his  life  does  Mr.  Webster’s  char- 
acter appear  in  a fairer  or  more  lovable  light 
than  during  this  winter  at  Fryeburg.  He  took 
his  own  share  in  the  sacrifices  he  had  done  so 
much  to  entail,  and  he  carried  it  cheerfully.  Out 
of  school  hours  he  copied  endless  deeds,  an  occu- 
pation which  he  loathed  above  all  others,  in  order 
that  he  might  give  all  his  salary  to  his  brother. 
The  burden  and  heat  of  the  day  in  this  struggle 


26 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


for  education  fell  chiefly  on  the  elder  brother  in 
the  years  which  followed ; but  here  Daniel  did  his 
full  part,  and  deserves  the  credit  for  it. 

He  was  a successful  teacher.  His  perfect  dig- 
nity, his  even  temper,  and  imperturbable  equa- 
nimity made  his  pupils  like  and  respect  him.  The 
survivors,  in  their  old  age,  recalled  the  impression 
he  made  upon  them,  and  especially  remembered 
the  solemn  tones  of  his  voice  at  morning  and  even- 
ing prayer,  extemporaneous  exercises  which  he 
scrupulously  maintained.  His  letters  at  this  time 
are  like  those  of  his  college  days,  full  of  fun  and 
good  humor  and  kind  feeling.  He  had  his  eai'ly 
love  affairs,  but  was  saved  from  matrimony  by  the 
liberality  of  his  affections,  which  were  not  con- 
fined to  a single  object.  He  laughs  pleasantly 
and  good-naturedly  over  his  fortunes  with  the  fair 
sex,  and  talks  a good  deal  about  them,  but  his  first 
loves  do  not  seem  to  have  been  very  deep  or  last- 
ing. Wherever  he  went,  he  produced  an  impres- 
sion on  all  who  saw  him.  In  Fryeburg  it  was  his 
eyes  which  people  seem  to  have  remembered  best. 
He  was  still  very  thin  in  face  and  figure,  and  he 
tells  us  himself  that  he  was  known  in  the  village 
as  “ All-eyes  ; ” and  one  of  the  boys,  a friend  of 
later  years,  refers  to  Mr.  Webster’s  “full,  steady, 
large,  and  searching  eyes.”  There  never  was  a 
time  in  his  life  when  those  who  saw  him  did  not 
afterwai'ds  speak  of  his  looks,  generally  either  of 
the  wonderful  eyes  or  the  imposing  presence. 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


27 


There  was  a circulating  library  in  Fryeburg, 
and  this  he  read  through  in  his  usual  rapacious 
and  retentive  fashion.  Here,  too,  he  was  called  on 
for  a Fourth  of  July  oration.  This  speech,  which 
has  been  recently  printed,  dwells  much  on  the 
Constitution  and  the  need  of  adhering  to  it  in  its 
entirety.  There  is  a distinct  improvement  in  his 
style  in  the  direction  of  simplicity,  but  there  is  no 
marked  advance  in  thought  or  power  of  expression 
over  the  Hanover  oration.  Two  months  after  de- 
livering this  address  he  returned  to  Salisbury  and 
resumed  the  study  of  the  law  in  Mr.  Thompson’s 
office.  He  now  plunged  more  deeply  into  law 
books,  and  began  to  work  at  the  law  with  zeal, 
while  at  the  same  time  he  read  much  and  thor- 
oughly in  the  best  Latin  authors.  In  the  months 
which  ensued  his  mind  expanded,  and  ambition 
began  to  rise  within  him.  His  horizon  was  a lim- 
ited one  ; the  practice  of  his  profession,  as  he  saw  it 
carried  on  about  him,  was  small  and  petty  ; but  his 
mind  could  not  be  shackled.  He  saw  the  lions  in 
the  path  plainly,  but  he  also  perceived  the  great  op- 
portunities which  the  law  was  to  offer  in  the  United 
States,  and  he  prophesied  that  we,  too,  should  soon 
have  our  Mansfields  and  Kenyons.  The  hand  of 
poverty  was  heavy  upon  him,  and  he  was  chafing 
and  beating  his  wings  against  the  iron  bars  with 
which  circumstances  had  imprisoned  him.  He 
longed  for  a wider  field,  and  eagerly  desired  to 
finish  his  studies  in  Boston,  but  saw  no  way  to  get 
there,  except  by  a “ miracle.” 


28 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


This  miracle  came  through  Ezekiel,  who  had 
been  doing  more  for  himself  and  his  family  than 
any  one  else,  but  who,  after  three  years  in  college, 
was  at  the  end  of  his  resources,  and  had  taken,  in 
his  turn,  to  keeping  school.  Daniel  went  to  Boston, 
and  there  obtained  a good  private  school  for  his 
brother.  The  salary  thus  earned  by  Ezekiel  was 
not  only  sufficient  for  himself,  but  enabled  Daniel 
to  gratify  the  cherished  wish  of  his  heart,  and 
come  to  the  New  England  capital  to  conclude  his 
professional  studies. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  gain  admit- 
tance to  some  good  office.  Mr.  Webster  was  lucky 
enough  to  obtain  an  introduction  to  Mr.  Gore, 
with  whom,  as  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  that 
wonderful  look  and  manner,  apparent  even  then, 
through  boyishness  and  rusticity,  stood  him  in 
good  stead.  Mr.  Gore  questioned  him,  trusted 
him,  and  told  him  to  hang  up  his  hat,  begin  work 
as  clerk  at  once,  and  write  to  New  Hampshire  for 
his  credentials.  The  position  thus  obtained  was 
one  of  fortune’s  best  gifts  to  Mr.  Webster.  It  not 
only  gave  him  an  opportunity  for  a wide  study  of 
the  law  under  wise  supervision,  but  it  brought 
him  into  daily  contact  with  a trained  barrister  and 
an  experienced  public  man.  Christopher  Gore, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  Boston 
bar  and  a distinguished  statesman,  had  just  re- 
turned from  England,  whither  he  had  been  sent 
as  one  of  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


29 


Jay  treaty.  He  was  a fine  type  of  the  aristocratic 
Federalist  leader,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of 
that  little  group  which  from  the  “ headquarters 
of  good  principles”  in  Boston  so  long  controlled 
the  politics  of  Massachusetts.  He  was  a scholar, 
gentleman,  and  man  of  the  world,  and  his  portrait 
shows  us  a refined,  high-bred  face,  suggesting  a 
French  marquis  of  the  eighteenth  century  rather 
than  the  son  of  a New  England  sea-captain.  A 
few  years  later,  Mr.  Gore  was  chosen  governor  of 
Massachusetts,  and  defeated  when  a candidate  for 
reelection  largely,  it  is  supposed,  because  he  rode 
in  a coach  and  four  (to  which  rumor  added  out- 
riders) whenever  he  went  to  his  estate  at  Wal- 
tham. This  mode  of  travel  offended  the  sensi- 
bilities of  his  democratic  constituents,  but  did 
not  prevent  his  being  subsequently  chosen  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  where  he  served  a 
term  with  much  distinction.  The  society  of  such  a 
man  was  invaluable  to  Mr.  Webster  at  this  time. 
It  taught  him  many  things  which  he  could  have 
learned  in  no  other  way,  and  appealed  to  that 
strong  taste  for  everything  dignified  and  refined 
which  was  so  marked  a trait  of  his  disposition  and 
habits.  He  saw  now  the  real  possibilities  which 
he  had  dreamed  of  in  his  native  village ; and  while 
he  studied  law  deeply  and  helped  his  brother  with 
his  school,  he  also  studied  men  still  more  thor- 
oughly and  curiously.  The  professional  associates 
and  friends  of  Mr.  Gore  were  the  leaders  of  the 


30 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Boston  bar  when  it  had  many  distinguished  men 
whose  names  hold  high  places  in  the  history  of 
American  law.  Among  them  were  Theophilus 
Parsons,  Chief  Justice  of  Massachusetts ; Samuel 
Dexter,  the  ablest  of  them  all,  fresh  from  service 
in  Congress  and  the  Senate  and  as  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury;  Harrison  Gray  Otis,  fluent  and 
graceful  as  an  orator;  James  Sullivan,  and  Daniel 
Davis,  the  Solicitor-General.  All  these  and  many 
more  Mr.  Webster  saw  and  watched,  and  he  has 
left  in  his  diary  discriminating  sketches  of  Parsons 
and  Dexter,  whom  he  greatly  admired,  and  of  Sul- 
livan, of  whom  he  had  a poor  opinion  profession- 
ally. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  year  1804,  while  Mr. 
Webster  was  thus  pleasantly  engaged  in  studying 
his  profession,  getting  a glimpse  of  the  world,  and 
now  and  then  earning  a little  money,  an  opening 
came  to  him  which  seemed  to  promise  immediate 
and  assured  prosperity.  The  judges  of  his  father’s 
court  of  common  pleas  offered  him  the  vacant 
clerkship,  worth  about  fifteen  hundred  dollars  an- 
nually. This  was  wealth  to  Mr.  Webster.  With 
this  income  he  could  relieve  the  family  from  debt, 
make  his  father’s  last  years  comfortable,  and 
smooth  Ezekiel’s  path  to  the  bar.  When,  how- 
ever, he  announced  his  good  luck  to  Mr.  Gore,  and 
his  intention  of  immediately  going  home  to  accept 
the  position,  that  gentleman,  to  Mr.  Webster’s 
great  surprise,  strongly  urged  a contrary  course. 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


31 


He  pointed  out  the  possible  reduction  of  the  sal- 
ary, the  fact  that  the  office  depended  on  the  favor 
of  the  judges,  and,  above  all,  that  it  led  to  nothing, 
and  destroyed  the  chances  of  any  really  great  ca- 
reer. This  wise  mentor  said  : “ Go  on  and  finish 
your  studies.  You  are  poor  enough,  but  there  are 
greater  evils  than  poverty  ; live  on  no  man's  favor  ; 
what  bread  you  do  eat,  let  it  be  the  bread  of  inde- 
pendence ; pursue  your  profession,  make  yourself 
useful  to  your  friends  and  a little  formidable  to 
your  enemies,  and  you  have  nothing  to  fear.”  Mr. 
Webster,  always  susceptible  to  outside  influences, 
saw  the  wisdom  of  this  advice,  and  accepted  it. 
It  would  have  been  well  if  he  had  never  swerved 
even  by  a hair’s  breadth  from  the  high  and  sound 
principles  which  it  inculcated.  He  acted  then 
without  delay.  Going  at  once  to  Salisbury,  he 
broke  the  news  of  his  unlooked-for  determination 
to  his  father,  who  was  utterly  amazed.  Pride  in 
his  son’s  high  spirit  mingled  somewhat  with  dis- 
appointment at  the  prospect  of  continued  hard- 
ships ; but  the  brave  old  man  accepted  the  decision 
with  the  Puritan  stoicism  which  was  so  marked  a 
trait  in  his  character,  and  the  matter  ended  there. 

Returning  to  Boston,  Mr.  Webster  was  admitted 
to  the  bar  in  March,  1805.  Mr.  Gore  moved  his 
admission,  and,  in  the  customary  speech,  prophe- 
sied his  student’s  future  eminence  with  a sure 
knowledge  of  the  latent  powers  which  had  dic- 
tated his  own  advice  in  the  matter  of  the  clerk- 


32 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ship.  Soon  after  this,  Mr.  Webster  returned  to 
New  Hampshire  and  opened  his  office  in  the  little 
town  of  Boscawen,  in  order  that  he  might  be  near 
his  father.  Here  he  devoted  himself  assiduously 
to  business  and  study  for  more  than  two  years, 
working  at  his  profession,  and  occasionally  writing’ 
articles  for  the  “ Boston  Anthology.”  During  this 
time  he  made  his  first  appearance  in  court,  his 
father  being  on  the  bench.  He  gathered  together 
a practice  worth  five  or  six  hundred  a year,  a very 
creditable  sum  fora  young  country  practitioner, 
and  won  a reputation  which  made  him  known  in 
the  State. 

In  April,  1806,  after  a noble,  toiling,  unselfish 
life  of  sixty-seven  years,  Ebenezer  Webster  died. 
Daniel  assumed  his  father’s  debts,  waited  until 
Ezekiel  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  then,  trans- 
ferring his  business  to  his  brother,  moved,  in  the 
autumn  of  1807,  to  Portsmouth.  This  was  the 
principal  town  of  the  State,  and  offered,  therefore, 
the  larger  field  which  he  felt  he  needed  to  give  his 
talents  sufficient  scope.  Thus  the  first  period  in 
his  life  closed,  and  he  started  out  on  the  extended 
and  distinguished  career  which  lay  before  him. 
These  early  years  had  been  years  of  hardship,  but 
they  were  among  the  best  of  his  life.  Through 
great  difficulties  and  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  his 
family,  he  had  made  his  way  to  the  threshold  of 
the  career  for  which  he  was  so  richly  endowed. 
He  had  passed  an  unblemished  youth  ; he  had  led 


CHILDHOOD  AND  YOUTH. 


33 


a clean,  honest,  hard-working  life  ; he  was  simple, 
manly,  affectionate.  Poverty  had  been  a misfor- 
tune, not  because  it  had  warped  or  soured  him,  for 
he  smiled  at  it  with  cheerful  philosophy,  nor  be- 
cause it  had  made  him  avaricious,  for  he  never 
either  then  or  at  any  time  cared  for  money  for  its 
own  sake,  and  nothing  could  chill  the  natural  lav- 
ishness of  his  disposition.  But  poverty  accus- 
tomed him  to  borrowing  and  to  debt,  and  this  was 
a misfortune  to  a man  of  Mr.  Webster’s  temper- 
ament. In  those  early  days  he  was  anxious  to 
pay  his  debts  ; but  they  did  not  lie  heavy  upon 
him  or  carry  a proper  sense  of  responsibility,  as 
they  did  to  Ezekiel  and  to  his  father.  He  was 
deeply  in  debt ; his  books,  even,  were  bought  with 
borrowed  money,  all  which  was  natural  and  inev- 
itable ; but  the  trouble  was  that  it  never  seems 
to  have  weighed  upon  him  or  been  felt  by  him  as 
of  much  importance.  He  was  thus  early  brought 
into  the  habit  of  debt,  and  was  led  unconsciously 
to  regard  debts  and  borrowing  as  he  did  the  sac- 

o o 

rifices  of  others,  as  the  normal  modes  of  existence. 
Such  a condition  was  to  be  deplored,  because  it 
fostered  an  unfortunate  tendency  in  his  moral  na- 
ture. With  this  exception,  Mr.  Webster’s  early 
years  present  a bright  picture,  and  one  which  any 
man  had  a right  to  regard  with  pride  and  affec- 
tion. 


CHAPTER  II. 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

The  occasion  of  Mi\  Webster’s  first  appearance 
in  court  has  been  the  subject  of  varying  tradi- 
tion. It  is  certain,  however,  that  in  the  counties 
where  he  practised  during  his  residence  at  Bos- 
cawen,  he  made  an  unusual  and  very  profound 
impression.  The  effect  then  produced  is  described 
in  homely  phrase  by  one  who  knew  him  well. 
The  reference  is  to  a murder  trial,  in  which  Mr. 
Webster  gained  his  first  celebrity. 

“ There  was  a man  tried  for  his  life,  and  the  judges 
chose  Webster  to  plead  for  him  ; and,  from  what  I can 
learn,  he  never  has  spoken  better  than  he  did  there 
where  he  first  began.  He  was  a black,  raven-haired 
fellow,  with  an  eye  as  black  as  death’s,  and  as  heavy  as 
a lion’s,  — that  same  heavy  look,  not  sleepy,  but  as  if 
he  did  n’t  care  about  anything  that  was  going  on  about 
him  or  anything  anywhere  else.  He  didn’t  look  as  if 
he  was  thinking  about  anything,  but  as  if  he  would  think 
like  a hurricane  if  he  once  got  waked  up  to  it.  They 
say  the  lion  looks  so  when  he  is  quiet.  . . . Webster 
would  sometimes  be  engaged  to  argue  a case  just  as  it 
was  coming  to  trial.  That  would  set  him  to  thinking. 
It  would  n’t  wrinkle  his  forehead,  but  made  him  rest- 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  35 

less.  He  would  shift  his  feet  about,  and  run  his  hand 
up  over  his  forehead,  through  his  Iudian-black  hair,  and 
lift  his  upper  lip  and  show  his  teeth,  which  were  as 
white  as  a hound’s.” 

Of  course  the  speech  so  admired  then  was  in- 
finitely below  what  was  done  afterwards.  The 
very  next  was  probably  better,  for  Mr.  Webster 
grew  steadily.  This  observer,  however,  tells  us 
not  what  Mr.  Webster  said,  but  how  he  looked. 
It  was  the  personal  presence  which  dwelt  with 
every  one  at  this  time. 

Thus  with  his  wonderful  leonine  look  and  large, 
dark  eyes,  and  with  the  growing  fame  which  he 
had  won,  Mr.  Webster  betook  himself  to  Ports- 
mouth. He  had  met  some  of  the  leading  lawyers 
already,  but  now  he  was  to  be  brought  into  direct 
and  almost  daily  competition  with  them.  At  that 
period  in  New  England  there  was  a great  rush  of 
men  of  talent  to  the  bar,  then  casting  off  its  colo- 
nial fetters  and  emerging  to  an  independent  life. 
The  pulpit  had  ceased  to  attract,  as  of  old  ; med- 
icine was  in  its  infancy ; there  were  none  of  the 
other  manifold  pursuits  of  to-day,  and  politics 
did  not  offer  a career  apart.  Outside  of  mercan- 
tile affairs,  therefore,  the  intellectual  forces  of  the 
old  Puritan  commonwealths,  overflowing  with  life, 
and  feeling  the  thrill  of  youthful  independence 
and  the  confidence  of  rapid  growth  in  business, 
wealth,  and  population,  were  concentrated  in  the 
law.  Even  in  a small  State  like  New  Hampshii’e, 


36 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


presenting  very  limited  opportunities,  there  was, 
relatively  speaking,  an  extraordinary  amount  of 
ability  among  the  members  of  the  bar,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  they  had  but  just  escaped 
from  the  condition  of  colonists.  Common  sense 
was  the  divinity  of  both  the  courts  and  the  profes- 
sion. The  learning  was  not  extensive  or  profound, 
but . pi-actical  knowledge,  sound  principles,  and 
shrewd  management  were  conspicuous.  Jeremiah 
Smith,  the  Chief  Justice,  a man  of  humor  and  cul- 
tivation, was  a well  read  and  able  judge  ; George 
Sullivan  was  ready  of  speech  and  fertile  in  expe- 
dients ; and  Parsons  and  Dexter  of  Massachusetts, 
both  men  of  national  reputation,  appeared  from 
time  to  time  in  the  New  Hampshire  courts. 
Among  the  most  eminent  was  William  Plumer, 
then  Senator,  and  afterwards  Governor  of  the 
State,  a well-trained,  clear-headed,  judicious  man. 
He  was  one  of  Mr.  Webster’s  early  antagonists, 
and  defeated  him  in  their  first  encounter.  Yet  at 
the  same  time,  although  a leader  of  the  bar  and  a 
United  States  Senator,  he  seems  to  have  been  op- 
pressed with  a sense  of  responsibility  and  even  of 
inequality  by  this  thin,  black-eyed  young  lawyer 
from  the  back  country.  Mr.  Plumer  was  a man  of 
cool  and  excellent  judgment,  and  he  thought  that 
Mr.  Webster  on  this  occasion  was  too  excursive 
and  declamatory.  He  also  deemed  him  better 
fitted  by  mind  and  temperament  for  politics  than 
for  the  law,  an  opinion  fully  justified  in  the  future, 


LA  W AND  POLITICS  IN  NE  W HAMPSHIRE.  37 

despite  Mr.  Webster's  eminence  at  the  bar.  In 
another  case,  where  they  were  opposed,  Mr.  Plumer 
quoted  a passage  from  Peake’s  “ Law  of  Evidence.” 
Mr.  Webster  criticised  the  citation  as  bad  law, 
pronounced  the  book  a miserable  two-penny  com- 
pilation, and  then,  throwing  it  down  with  a fine 
disdain,  said,  “ So  much  for  Mr.  Thomas  Peake’s 
compendium  of  the  ‘ Law  of  Evidence.’  ” Such 
was  his  manner  that  every  one  present  appeared 
to  think  the  point  settled,  and  felt  rather  ashamed 
of  ever  having  heard  of  Mr.  Peake  or  his  unfor- 
tunate book.  Thereupon  Mr.  Plumer  produced  a 
volume  of  reports  by  which  it  appeared  that  the 
despised  passage  was  taken  word  for  word  from 
one  of  Lord  Mansfield’s  decisions.  The  wretched 
Peake’s  character  was  rehabilitated,  and  Mr. 
Webster  silenced.  This  was  an  illustration  of  a 
failing  of  Mr.  Webster  at  that  time.  He  was 
rough'  and  unceremonious.  and  even  overbearing, 
both  to  court  and  bar,  the  natural  result  of  a new 
sense  of  power  in  an  inexperienced  man.  This 
harshness  of  manner,  however,  soon  disappeared. 
He  learned  rapidly  to  practise  the  stately  and 
solemn  courtesy  which  distinguished  him  through 
life. 

There  was  one  lawyer,  however,  at  the  head  of 
his  profession  in  New  Hampshire,  who  had  more 
effect  upon  Mr.  Webster  than  any  other  whom  he 
ever  met  there  or  elsewhere.  This  was  the  man 
to  whom  the  Shaker  said:  “By  thy  size  and  thy 


38 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


language1  I judge  that  thou  art  Jeremiah  Mason.” 
Mr.  Mason  was  one  of  the  greatest  common-law- 
yers this  country  has  ever  produced.  Keen  and 
penetrating  in  intellect,  he  was  master  of  a re- 
lentless logic  and  of  a style  which,  though  simple 
and  homely,  was  clear  and  correct  to  the  last 
point.  Slow  and  deliberate  in  his  movements, 
and  sententious  in  his  utterances,  he  dealt  so  pow- 
erfully with  evidence  and  so  lucidly  with  princi- 
ples of  law  that  he  rarely  failed  to  carry  convic- 
tion to  his  hearers.  He  was  particularly  renowned 
for  his  success  in  getting  verdicts.  Many  years 
afterwards  Mr.  Webster  gave  it  as  his  deliberate 
opinion  that  he  had  never  met  with  a stronger  in- 
tellect, a mind  of  more  native  resources  or  quicker 
and  deeper  vision  than  were  possessed  by  Mr. 
Mason,  whom  in  mental  reach  and  grasp  and  in 
closeness  of  reasoning  he  would  not  allow  to  be 
second  even  to  Chief  Justice  Marshall.  Mr.  Ma- 
son on  his  side,  with  his  usual  sagacity,  at  once 
detected  the  gi'eat  talents  of  Mr.  W ebster.  In  the 
first  case  where  they  were  opposed,  a murder  trial, 
Mr.  Webster  took  the  place  of  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral for  the  prosecution.  Mr.  Mason,  speaking  of 
the  impression  made  by  his  youthful  and  then  un- 
known opponent,  said : — 

“ He  broke  upou  me  like  a thunder  shower  in  July, 

1 Mr.  Mason,  as  is  well  known,  was  six  feet  seven  inches  in  height, 
and  his  language,  always  very  forcible  and  direct,  was,  when  he  was 
irritated,  if  we  may  trust  tradition,  at  times  somewhat  profane. 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  39 

sudden,  portentous,  sweeping  all  before  it.  It  was  the 
first  case  in  which  he  appeared  at  our  bar  ; a criminal 
prosecution  in  which  I had  arranged  a very  pretty  de- 
fence, as  against  the  Attorney-General,  Atkinson,  who 
was  able  enough  in  his  way,  but  whom  I knew  very 
well  how  to  take.  Atkinson  being  absent,  Webster 
conducted  the  case  for  him,  and  turned,  in  the  most 
masterly  manner,  the  line  of  my  defences,  carrying  with 
him  all  but  one  of  the  jurors,  so  that  I barely  saved  my 
client  by  my  best  exertions.  I was  never  more  surprised 
than  by  this  remarkable  exhibition  of  unexpected  power. 
It  surpassed,  in  some  respects,  anything  which  I have 
ever  since  seen  even  in  him.” 

With  all  his  admiration  for  his  young  antago- 
nist, however,  one  cannot  help  noticing  that  the 
generous  and  modest  but  astute  counsel  for  the 
defence  ended  by  winning  his  case. 

Fortune  showered  many  favors  upon  Mr.  "Web- 
ster, but  none  more  valuable  than  that  of  having 
Jeremiah  Mason  as  his  chief  opponent  at  the  New 
Hampshire  bar.  Mr.  Mason  had  no  spark  of  envy 
in  his  composition.  He  not  only  regarded  with 
pleasure  the  great  abilities  of  Mr.  Webster,  but 
he  watched  with  kindly  interest  the  rapid  rise 
which  soon  made  this  stranger  from  the  country 
his  principal  competitor  and  the  champion  com- 
monly chosen  to  meet  him  in  the  courts.  He  gave 
Mr.  Webster  his  friendship,  staunch  and  unvary- 
ing, until  his  death  ; he  gave  freely  also  of  his  wis- 
dom and  experience  in  advice  and  counsel.  Best 


40 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


of  all  was  the  opportunity  of  instruction  and  dis- 
cipline which  Mr.  Webster  gained  by  repeated 
contests  with  such  a man.  The  strong  qualities  of 
Mr.  Webster’s  miud  rapidly  developed  by  constant 
practice  and  under  such  influences.  He  showed 
more  and  more  in  every  case  his  wonderful  in- 
stinct for  seizing  on  the  very  heart  of  a question, 
and  for  extricating  the  essential  points  from  the 
midst  of  confused  details  and  clashing  arguments. 
He  displayed,  too,  more  strongly  every  day  his 
capacity  for  close,  logical  reasoning  and  for  telling 
retort,  backed  by  a passion  and  energy  none  the 
less  effective  from  being  but  slowly  called  into 
activity.  In  a word,  the  unequalled  power  of  stat- 
ing facts  or  principles,  which  was  the  predomi- 
nant quality  of  Mr.  Webster’s  genius,  grew  stead- 
ily with  a vigorous  vitality  while  his  eloquence 
developed  in  a similar  striking  fashion.  Much  of 
this  growth  and  improvement  was  due  to  the  sharp 
competition  and  bright  example  of  Mr.  Mason. 
But  the  best  lesson  that  Mr.  Webster  learned  from 
his  wary  yet  daring  antagonist  was  in  regard  to 
style.  When  he  saw  Mr.  Mason  go  close  to  the 
jury  box,  and  in  a plain  style  and  conversational 
manner,  force  conviction  upon  his  hearers,  and 
carry  off  verdict  after  verdict,  Mr.  Webster  felt 
as  he  had  never  done  before  the  defects  of  his 
own  modes  of  expression.  His  florid  phrases 
looked  rather  mean,  insincere,  and  tasteless,  be- 
sides being  weak  and  ineffective.  From  that  time 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  41 

he  began  to  study  simplicity  and  directness,  which 
ended  in  the  perfection  of  a style  unsurpassed  in 
modern  oratory.  The  years  of  Mr.  Webster’s  pro- 
fessional life  in  Portsmouth  under  the  tuition  of 
Mr.  Mason  were  of  inestimable  service  to  him. 

Early  in  this  period,  also,  Mr.  Webster  gave  up 
his  bachelor  existence,  and  made  for  himself  a 
home.  When  he  first  appeared  at  church  in 
Portsmouth  the  minister’s  daughter  noted  and  re- 
membered his  striking  features  and  look,  and  re- 
garded him  as  one  with  great  capacities  for  good 
or  evil.  But  the  interesting  stranger  was  not  des- 
tined to  fall  a victim  to  any  of  the  young  ladies  of 
Portsmouth.  In  the  spring  of  1808  he  slipped 
away  from  his  new  friends  and  returned  to  Salis- 
bury, where,  in  May,  he  was  married.  The  bride 
he  brought  back  to  Portsmouth  was  Grace  Fletcher, 
daughter  of  the  minister  of  Hopkinton.  Mr.  Web- 
ster is  said  to  have  seen  her  first  at  church  in  Sal- 
isbury, whither  she  came  on  horseback  in  a tight- 
fitting  black  velvet  dress,  and  looking,  as  he  said, 
“ like  an  angel.”  She  was  certainly  a vei’y  lovely 
and  charming  woman,  of  delicate  and  refined  sen- 
sibilities and  bright  and  sympathetic  mind.  She 
was  a devoted  wife,  the  object  of  her  husband’s 
first  and  strongest  love,  and  the  mother  of  his 
children.  It  is  very  pleasant  to  look  at  Mr.  Web- 
ster in  his  home  during  these  early  years  of  his 
married  life.  It  was  a happy,  innocent,  untroubled 
time.  He  was  advancing  in  his  profession,  win- 


42 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ning  fame  and  respect,  earning  a sufficient  income, 
blessed  in  liis  domestic  relations,  and  with  his  chil- 
dren growing  up  about  him.  He  was  social  by  na- 
ture, and  very  popular  everywhere.  Genial  and 
affectionate  in  disposition,  he  attached  everybody 
to  him,  and  his  hearty  humor,  love  of  mimicry, 
and  fund  of  anecdote  made  him  a delightful  com- 
panion, and  led  Mr.  Mason  to  say  that  the  stage 
had  lost  a great  actor  in  Webster. 

But  while  he  was  thus  enjoying  professional 
success  and  the  contented  happiness  of  his  fireside, 
he  was  slowly  but  surely  drifting  into  the  current 
of  politics,  whither  his  genius  led  him,  and  which 
had  for  him  an  irresistible  attraction.  Mr.  Web- 
ster took  both  his  politics  and  his  religion  from 
his  father,  and  does  not  appear  to  have  questioned 
either.  He  had  a peculiar^  conservative  cast  of 
mind.  In  an  age  of  revolution  and  scepticism  he 
showed  no  trace  of  the  questioning  spirit  which 
then  prevailed.  Even  in  his  earliest  years  he  was 
a firm  believer  in  existing  institutions,  in  what 
was  fixed  and  established.  He  had  a little  of  the 
disposition  of  Lord  Thurlow,  who,  when  asked  by 
a dissenter  why,  being  a notorious  free-thinker,  he 
so  ardently  supported  the  Established  Church,  re- 
plied : “ I support  the  Church  of  England  because 
it  is  established.  Establish  your  religion,  and  I ’ll 
support  that.”  But  if  Mr.  Webster  took  his  relig- 
ion and  politics  from  his  father  in  an  unquestioning 
spirit,  he  accepted  them  in  a mild  form.  He  was 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  43 

a liberal  Federalist  because  lie  bad  a wide  mental 
vision,  and  by  nature  took  broad  views  of  every- 
thing. His  father,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a rigid, 
intolerant  Federalist  of  a thorough-going  Puritan 
type.  Being  taken  ill  once  in  a town  of  Demo- 
cratic proclivities,  he  begged  to  be  carried  home. 
“ I was  born  a Federalist,”  he  said,  “ I have  lived 
a Federalist,  and  I won’t  die  in  a Democratic 
town.”  In  the  same  way  Ezekiel  Webster’s  un- 
compromising Federalism  shut  him  out  from  po- 
litical preferment,  and  he  would  never  modify  his 
principles  one  jot  in  order  to  gain  the  seat  in 
Congress  which  he  might  easily  have  obtained  by 
slight  concessions.  The  broad  and  liberal  spirit 
of  Daniel  Webster  rose  superior  to  the  rigid  and 
even  narrow  opinions  of  his  father  and  brother, 
but  perhaps  it  would  have  been  better  for  him  if 
he  had  had  in  addition  to  his  splendid  mind  the 
stern,  unbending  force  of  character  which  made 
his  father  and  brother  stand  by  their  principles 
with  immovable  Puritan  determination.  Liberal 
as  he  was,  however,  in  his  political  opinions,  the 
same  conservative  spirit  which  led  him  to  adopt 
his  creed  made  him  sustain  it  faithfully  and  con- 
stantly when  he  had  once  accepted  it.  He  was  a 
steady  and  trusted  party  man,  although  neither 
then  nor  at  any  time  a blind,  unreasoning  par- 
tisan. 

Mr.  Webster  came  forward  gradually  as  a polit- 
ical leader  by  occasional  addresses  and  speeches,  at 


44 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


first  with  long  intervals  between  them,  and  then 
becoming  more  frequent,  until  at  last  he  found 
himself  fairly  engaged  in  a public  career.  In  1804, 
at  the  request  of  some  of  his  father’s  friends,  he 
published  a pamphlet,  entitled,  “An  Appeal  to 
Old  Whigs,”  in  the  interest  of  Gilman,  the  Federal 
candidate  for  governor.  He  seems  to  have  had  a 
very  poor  opinion  of  this  performance,  and  his  in- 
terest in  the  success  of  the  party  at  that  juncture 
was  very  slight.  In  1805  he  delivered  a Fourth 
of  July  oration  at  Salisbury,  which  has  not  been 
preserved;  and  in  the  following  year  he  gave  an- 
other before  the  “Federal gentlemen  ” of  Concord, 
which  was  published.  The  tone  of  this  speech  is 
not  very  partisan,  nor  does  it  exhibit  the  bitter 
spirit  of  the  Federalists,  although  he  attacked 
the  administration,  was  violent  in  urging  the  pro- 
tection of  commerce,  and  was  extremely  savage  in 
his  remarks  about  France.  At  times  the  style  is 
forcible,  and  even  rich,  but,  as  a rule,  it  is  still 
strained  and  artificial.  The  oration  begins  eagerly 
with  an  appeal  for  the  Constitution  and  the 
Republic,  the  ideas  always  uppermost  in  Mr. 
Webster’s  mind.  As  a whole,  it  shows  a distinct 
improvement  in  form,  but  there  are  no  marks 
of  genius  to  raise  it  above  the  ordinary  level  of 
Fourth  of  July  speeches.  His  next  production 
was  a little  pamphlet,  published  in  1808,  on  the 
embargo,  which  was  then  paralyzing  New  Eng- 
land, and  crushing  out  her  prosperity.  This  essay 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  45 

is  important  because  it  is  the  first  clear  instance 
of  that  wonderful  faculty  which  Mr.  Webster  had 
of  seizing  on  the  vital  point  of  a subject,  and 
bringing  it  out  in  such  a way  that  everybody 
could  see  and  understand  it.  In  this  case  the  point 
was  the  distinction  between  a temporary  embargo 
and  one  of  unlimited  duration.  Mr.  Webster 
contended  that  the  latter  was  unconstitutional. 
The  great  mischief  of  the  embargo  was  in  Jeffer- 
son’s concealed  intention  that  it  should  be  unlim- 
ited in  point  of  time,  a piece  of  recklessness  and 
deceit  never  fully  appreciated  until  it  had  all 
passed  into  history.  This  Mr.  Webster  detected 
and  brought  out  as  the  most  illegal  and  dangerous 
feature  of  the  measure,  while  he  also  discussed  the 
general  policy  in  its  fullest  extent.  In  1809  he 
spoke  before  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society,  upon 
“ The  State  of  our  Literature,”  an  address  without 
especial  interest  except  as  showing  a very  marked 
improvement  in  style,  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  influ- 
ence of  Mr.  Mason. 

During  the  next  three  years  Mr.  Webster  was 
completely  absorbed  in  the  practice  of  his  profes- 
sion, and  not  until  the  declaration  of  war  with 
England  had  stirred  and  agitated  the  whole  coun- 
try did  he  again  come  before  the  public.  The 
occasion  of  his  reappearance  was  the  Fourth  of 
July  celebration  in  1812,  when  he  addressed  the 
Washington  Benevolent  Society  at  Portsmouth. 
The  speech  was  a strong,  calm  statement  of  the 


46 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


grounds  of  opposition  to  the  war.  He  showed 
that  “ maritime  defence,  commercial  regulations, 
and  national  revenue  ” were  the  very  corner-stones 
of  the  Constitution,  and  that  these  great  interests 
had  been  crippled  and  abused  by  the  departure 
from  Washington’s  policy.  He  developed,  with 
great  force,  the  principal  and  the  most  unanswer- 
able argument  of  his  party,  that  the  navy  had  been 
neglected  and  decried  because  it  was  a Federalist 
scheme,  when  a navy  was  what  we  wanted  above 
all  things,  and  especially  when  we  were  drifting 
into  a maritime  conflict.  He  argued  strongly  in 
favor  of  a naval  war,  and  measures  of  naval  de- 
fence, instead  of  wasting  our  resources  by  an  in- 
vasion of  Canada.  So  far  he  went  strictly  with 
his  party,  merely  invigorating  and  enforcing  their 
well-known  principles.  But  when  he  came  to  de- 
fining the  proper  limits  of  opposition  to  the  war 
he  modified  very  essentially  the  course  prescribed 
by  advanced  Federalist  opinions.  The  majority 
of  that  party  in  New  England  were  prepared  to  go 
to  the  very  edge  of  the  narrow  legal  line  which 
divides  constitutional  opposition  from  treasonable 
resistance.  They  were  violent,  bitter,  and  un- 
compromising in  their  language  and  purposes. 
From  this  Mr.  Webster  was  saved  by  his  breadth 
of  view,  his  clear  perceptions,  and  his  intense 
national  feeling.  He  says  on  this  point : — 

“ With  respect  to  the  war  in  which  we  are  now  in- 
volved, the  course  which  our  principles  require  us  to 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  47 

pursue  cannot  be  doubtful.  It  is  now  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  as  such  we  are  bound  to  regard  it.  Resist- 
ance and  insurrection  form  no  part  of  our  creed.  The 
disciples  of  Washington  are  neither  tyrants  in  power  nor 
rebels  out.  If  we  are  taxed  to  carry  on  this  war  we 
shall  disregard  certain  distinguished  examples  and  shall 
pay.  If  our  personal  services  are  required  we  shall 
yield  them  to  the  precise  extent  of  our  constitutional 
liability.  At  the  same  time  the  world  may  be  assured 
that  we  know  our  rights  and  shall  exercise  them.  We 
shall  express  our  opinions  on  this,  as  on  every  measure 
of  the  government, — I trust  without  passion,  I am  cer- 
tain without  fear.  By  the  exercise  of  our  constitutional 
right  of  suffrage,  by  the  peaceable  remedy  of  election, 
we  shall  seek  to  restore  wisdom  to  our  councils,  and 
peace  to  our  country.” 

This  was  a sensible  and  patriotic  opposition. 
It  represented  the  views  of  the  moderate  Fed- 
eralists, and  traced  the  lines  which  Mr.  Webster 
consistently  followed  during  the  first  years  of  his 
public  life.  The  address  concluded  by  pointing 
out  the  French  trickery  which  had  provoked  the 
war,  and  by  denouncing  an  alliance  with  French 
despotism  and  ambition. 

This  oration  was  printed,  and  ran  at  once 
through  two  editions.  It  led  to  the  selection  of 
Mr.  Webster  as  a delegate  to  an  assembly  of  the 
people  of  the  county  of  Rockingham,  a sort  of 
mass  convention,  held  in  August,  1812.  There 
he  was  placed  on  the  committee  to  prepare  the 
address,  and  was  chosen  to  write  their  report, 


48 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


which,  was  adopted  and  published.  This  im- 
portant document,  widely  known  at  the  time  as 
the  “ Rockingham  Memorial,”  was  a careful  argu- 
ment against  the  war,  and  a vigorous  and  able 
presentation  of  the  Federalist  views.  It  was 
addressed  to  the  President,  whom  it  treated  with 
respectful  severity.  With  much  skill  it  turned 
Mr.  Madison’s  own  arguments  against  himself, 
and  appealed  to  public  opinion  by  its  clear  and 
convincing  reasoning.  In  one  point  the  memorial 
differed  curiously  from  the  oration  of  a month 
before.  The  latter  pointed  to  the  suffrage  as  the 
mode  of  redress  ; the  former  distinctly  hinted  at 
and  almost  threatened  secession  even  while  it  de- 
plored a dissolution  of  the  Union  as  a possible 
result  of  the  administration’s  policy.  In  the  one 
case  Mr.  Webster  was  expressing  his  own  views, 
in  the  other  he  was  giving  utterance  to  the  opin- 
ions of  the  members  of  his  party  among  whom 
he  stood.  This  little  incident  shows  the  suscepti- 
bility to  outside  influences  which  formed  such  an 
odd  trait  in  the  character  of  a man  so  imperious  by 
nature.  When  acting  alone,  he  spoke  his  own 
opinions.  When  in  a situation  where  public  opin- 
ion was  concentrated  against  him,  he  submitted 
to  modifications  of  his  views  with  a curious  and 
indolent  indifference. 

The  immediate  result  to  Mr.  Webster  of  the 
ability  and  tact  which  he  displayed  at  the  Rocking- 
ham Convention  was  his  election  to  the  thirteenth 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  49 

Congress,  where  he  took  his  seat  in  May,  1813. 
There  were  then  many  able  men  in  the  House. 
Mr.  Clay  was  Speaker,  and  on  the  floor  were 
John  C.  Calhoun,  Langdon  Cheves  and  William 
Lowndes  of  South  Carolina,  Forsyth  and  Troup  of 
Georgia,  Ingersoll  of  Pennsylvania,  Grundy  of 
Tennessee,  and  McLean  of  Ohio,  all  conspicuous 
in  the  young  nationalist  war  party.  Macon  and 
Eppes  were  representatives  of  the  old  Jeffersonian 
Republicans,  while  the  Federalists  were  strong  in 
the  possession  of  such  leaders  as  Pickering  of 
Massachusetts,  Pitkin  of  Connecticut,  Grosvenor 
and  Benson  of  New  York,  Hanson  of  Maryland, 
and  William  Gaston  of  North  Carolina.  It  was  a 
House  in  which  any  one  might  have  been  glad  to 
win  distinction.  That  Mr.  Webster  was  consid- 
ered, at  the  outset,  to  be  a man  of  great  promise 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  was  placed  on  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  of  which  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  the  head,  and  which,  in  the  war 
time,  was  the  most  important  committee  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  Webster’s  first  act  was  a characteristic  one. 
Early  in  June  he  introduced  a set  of  resolutions 
calling  upon  the  President  for  information  as  to 
the  time  and  mode  in  which  the  repeal  of  the 
French  decrees  had  been  communicated  to  our 
government.  His  unerring  sagacity  in  singling 
out  the  weak  point  in  his  enemy’s  armor  and  in 
choosing  his  own  keenest  weapon,  was  never  bet- 

4 


50 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ter  illustrated  than  on  this  occasion.  We  know 
now  that  in  the  negotiations  for  the  repeal  of  the 
decrees,  the  French  government  tricked  us  into 
war  with  England  by  most  profligate  lying.  It 
was  apparent  then  that  there  was  something 
wrong,  and  that  either  our  government  had  been 
deceived,  or  had  withheld  the  publication  of  the 
repealing  decree  until  war  was  declared,  so  that 
England  might  not  have  a pretext  for  rescinding 
the  obnoxious  orders.  Either  horn  of  the  dilemma, 
therefore,  was  disagreeable  to  the  administration, 
and  a disclosure  could  hardly  fail  to  benefit  the 
Federalists.  Mr.  Webster  supported  his  resolu- 
tions with  a terse  and  simple  speech  of  explanation, 
so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  meagre  abstract 
which  has  come  down  to  us.  The  resolutions, 
however,  were  a firebrand,  and  lighted  up  an  angry 
and  protracted  debate,  but  the  ruling  party,  as  Mr. 
Webster  probably  foresaw,  did  not  dare  to  vote 
them  down,  and  they  passed  by  large  majorities. 
Mr.  Webster  spoke  but  once,  and  then  very  briefly, 
during  the  progress  of  the  debate,  and  soon  after 
returned  to  New  Hampshire.  With  the  exception 
of  these  resolutions,  he  took  no  active  part  what- 
ever in  the  business  of  the  House  beyond  voting 
steadily  with  his  party,  a fact  of  which  we  may 
be  sure  because  he  was  always  on  the  same  side  as 
that  staunch  old  partisan,  Timothy  Pickering. 

After  a summer  passed  in  the  performance  of 
bis  professional  duties,  Mr.  Webster  returned  to 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  51 

Washington.  He  was  late  in  his  coming,  Con- 
gress having  been  in  session  nearly  three  weeks 
when  he  arrived  to  find  that  he  had  been  dropped 
from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  The 
dominant  party  probably  discovered  that  he  was 
a young  man  of  rather  too  much  promise  and 
too  formidable  an  opponent  for  such  an  important 
post.  His  resolutions  had  been  answered  at  the 
previous  session,  after  his  departure,  and  the  re- 
port, which  consisted  of  a lame  explanation  of  the 
main  point,  and  an  elaborate  defence  of  the  war, 
had  been  quietly  laid  aside.  Mr.  Webster  desired 
debate  on  this  subject,  and  succeeded  in  carrying  a 
reference  of  the  report  to  a committee  of  the  whole, 
but  his  opponents  prevented  its  ever  coming  to 
discussion.  In  the  long  session  which  ensued,  Mr. 
Webster  again  took  comparatively  little  part  in 
general  business,  but  he  spoke  oftener  than  before. 
He  seems  to  have  been  reserving  his  strength  and 
making  sure  of  his  ground.  He  defended  the 
Federalists  as  the  true  friends  of  the  navy,  and  he 
resisted  with  great  power  the  extravagant  attempt 
to  extend  martial  law  to  all  citizens  suspected  of 
treason.  On  January  14,  1814,  he  made  a long 
and  well  reported  speech  against  a bill  to  encour- 
age enlistments.  This  is  the  first  example  of  the 
eloquence  which  Mr.  Webster  afterwards  carried 
to  such  high  perfection.  Some  of  his  subsequent 
speeches  far  surpass  this  one,  but  they  differ  from 
it  in  degree,  not  in  kind.  He  was  now  master 


52 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


of  the  style  at  which  he  aimed.  The  vehicle  was 
perfected  and  his  natural  talent  gave  that  vehi- 
cle abundance  of  thought  to  be  conveyed.  The 
whole  speech  is  simple  in  form,  direct  and  forcible. 
It  has  the  elasticity  and  vigor  of  great  strength, 
and  glows  with  eloquence  in  some  passages.  Here, 
too,  we  see  for  the  first  time  that  power  of  de- 
liberate and  measured  sarcasm  which  was  destined 
to  become  in  his  hands  such  a formidable  weapon. 
The  florid  rhetoric  of  the  early  days  is  utterly 
gone,  and.  the  thought  comes  to  us  in  those  short 
and  pregnant  sentences  and  in  the  choice  and  ef- 
fective words  which  were  afterwards  so  typical 
of  the  speaker.  The  speech  itself  was  a party 
speech  and  a presentation  of  party  arguments.  It 
offered  nothing  new,  but  the  familiar  principles 
had  hardly  ever  been  stated  in  such  a striking  and 
impressive  fashion.  Mr.  Webster  attacked  the 
war  policy  and  the  conduct  of  the  war,  and  advo- 
cated defensive  warfare,  a navy,  and  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  restrictive  laws  that  were  ruining  our 
commerce,  which  had  been  the  main  cause  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  The  conclusion  of 
this  speech  is  not  far  from  the  level  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s best  work.  It  is  too  long  for  quotation,  but 
a few  sentences  will  show  its  quality  : — - 

“ Give  up  your  futile  projects  of  invasion.  Extinguish 
the  fires  that  blaze  on  your  inland  frontier.  Establish 
perfect  safety  and  defence  there  by  adequate  force.  Let 
every  man  that  sleeps  on  your  soil  sleep  in  security.  Stop 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  53 

the  Wood  that  flows  from  the  veins  of  unarmed  yeo- 
manry and  women  and  children.  Give  to  the  living  time 
to  bury  and  lament  their  dead  in  the  quietness  of  private 
sorrow.  Having  performed  this  work  of  beneficence 
and  mercy  on  your  inland  border,  turn,  and  look  with 
the  eye  of  justice  and  compassion  on  your  vast  popula- 
tion along  the  coast.  Unclench  the  iron  grasp  of  your 
embargo.  Take  measures  for  that  end  before  another 
sun  sets.  . . . Let  it  no  longer  be  said  that  not  one 
ship  of  force,  built  by  your  hands,  yet  floats  upon  the 
ocean.  ...  If  then  the  war  must  be  continued,  go  to 
the  ocean.  If  you  are  seriously  contending  for  mari- 
time rights,  go  to  the  theatre  where  alone  those  rights 
can  be  defended.  Thither  every  indication  of  your  for- 
tune points  you.  There  the  united  wishes  and  exertions 
of  the  nation  will  go  with  you.  Even  our  party  divi- 
sions, acrimonious  as  they  are,  cease  at  the  water’s 
edge.” 

Events  soon  forced  the  policy  urged  by  Mr. 
Webster  upon  the  administration,  whose  friends 
carried  first  a modification  of  the  embargo,  and 
before  the  close  of  the  session  introduced  a bill 
for  its  total  repeal.  The  difficult  task  of  advo- 
cating this  measure  devolved  upon  Mr.  Calhoun, 
who  sustained  his  cause  more  ingeniously  than  in- 
genuously. He  frankly  admitted  that  restriction 
was  a failure  as  a war  measure,  but  he  defended 
the  repeal  on  the  ground  that  the  condition  of 
affairs  in  Europe  had  changed  since  the  restrictive 
policy  was  adopted.  It  had  indeed  changed  since 
the  embargo  of  1807,  but  not  since  the  imposition 


54  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

of  that  of  1813,  which  was  the  one  under  discus- 
sion. 

Mr.  Calhoun  laid  himself  open  to  most  unmer- 
ciful retorts,  which  was  his  misfortune,  not  his 
fault,  for  the  embargo  had  been  utterly  and  hope- 
lessly wrong  from  the  beginning.  Mr.  Webster, 
however,  took  full  advantage  of  the  opportunity 
thus  presented.  His  opening  congratulations  are 
in  his  best  vein  of  stately  sarcasm,  and  are  admira- 
bly put.  He  followed  this  up  by  a new  argument 
of  great  force,  showing  the  colonial  spirit  of  the  re- 
strictive policy.  He  also  dwelt  with  fresh  vigor 
on  the  identification  with  France  necessitated  by 
the  restrictive  laws,  a reproach  which  stung  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  his  followers  more  than  anything 
else.  He  then  took  up  the  embargo  policy  and 
tore  it  to  pieces,  — no  very  difficult  undertaking, 
but  well  performed.  The  shifty  and  shifting  pol- 
icy of  the  government  was  especially  distasteful  to 
Mr.  Webster,  with  his  lofty  conception  of  consist- 
ent and  steady  statesmanship,  a point  which  is 
well  brought  out  in  the  following  passage  : — 

“ In  a commercial  country,  nothing  can  be  more  ob- 
jectionable than  frequent  and  violent  changes.  The 
concerns  of  private  business  do  not  endure  such  rude 
shocks  but  with  extreme  inconvenience  and  great  loss. 
It  would  seem,  however,  that  there  is  a class  of  politi- 
cians to  whose  taste  all  change  is  suited,  to  whom  what- 
ever is  unnatural  seems  wise,  and  all  that  is  violent 
appears  great.  . . . The  Embargo  Act,  the  Non-Im- 


LAW  AXD  POLITICS  IX  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  55 

portation  Act,  and  all  the  crowd  of  additions  and  sup- 
plements, together  with  all  their  garniture  of  messages, 
reports,  and  resolutions,  are  tumbling  undistinguished 
into  one  common  grave.  But  yesterday  this  policy  had 
a thousand  friends  and  supporters ; to-day  it  is  fallen 
and  prostrate,  and  few  ‘ so  poor  as  to  do  it  reverence.’ 
Sir,  a government  which  cannot  administer  the  affairs  of 
a nation  without  so  frequent  and  such  violent  alterations 
in  the  ordinary  occupations  and  pursuits  of  private  life, 
has,  in  my  opinion,  little  claim  to  the  regard  of  the  com- 
munity.” 

All  this  is  very  characteristic  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
temperament  in  dealing  with  public  affairs,  and  is 
a very  good  example  of  his  power  of  dignified  re- 
proach and  condemnation. 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  said  at  the  close  of  his  speech, 
that  the  repeal  of  the  restrictive  measures  should 
not  be  allowed  to  affect  the  double  duties  which 
protected  manufactures.  Mr.  Webster  discussed 
this  point  at  length,  defining  his  own  position, 
which  was  that  of  the  New  England  Federalists, 
who  believed  in  free  trade  as  an  abstract  princi- 
ple, and  considered  protection  only  as  an  expedi- 
ent of  which  they  wanted  as  little  as  possible. 
Mr.  Webster  set  forth  these  views  in  his  usual 
effective  and  lucid  manner,  but  they  can  be  con- 
sidered more  fitly  at  the  period  when  he  dealt 
with  the  tariff  as  a leading  issue  of  the  day  and  of 
his  own  public  life. 

Mr.  Webster  took  no  further  action  of  impor- 


56 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tance  at  this  session,  not  even  participating  in  the 
great  debate  on  the  loan  bill ; but,  by  the  manner 
in  which  these  two  speeches  were  referred  to  and 
quoted  in  Congress  for  many  daj's  after  they  were 
delivered,  we  can  perceive  the  depth  of  their  first 
impression.  I have  dwelt  upon  them  at  length 
because  they  are  not  in  the  collected  edition  of 
his  speeches,  where  they  well  deserve  a place, 
and,  still  more,  because  they  are  the  first  exam- 
ples of  his  parliamentary  eloquence  which  show 
his  characteristic  qualities  and  the  action  of  his 
mind.  Mr.  Webster  was  a man  of  slow  growth, 
not  reaching  his  highest  point  until  he  was  nearly 
fifty  years  of  age,  but  these  two  speeches  mark  an 
advanced  stage  in  his  progress.  The  only  fresh 
point  that  he  made  was  when  he  declared  that  the 
embargo  was  colonial  in  spirit ; and  this  thought 
proceeded  from  the  vital  principle  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
public  life,  his  intense  love  for  nationality  and 
union,  which  grew  with  his  growth  and  strength- 
ened with  his  strength.  In  other  respects,  these 
speeches  presented  simply  the  arguments  and  opin- 
ions of  his  party.  They  fell  upon  the  ear  of  Con- 
gress and  the  country  with  a new  and  ringing 
sound  because  they  were  stated  so  finely  and  with 
such  simplicity.  Certainly  one  of  them,  and  prob- 
ably both,  were  delivered  without  any  immediate 
preparation,  but  they  really  had  the  preparation  of 
years,  and  were  the  utterance  of  thoughts  which  had 
been  garnei’ed  up  by  long  meditation.  He  wisely 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  57 

confined  himself  at  this  time  to  a subject  which  had 
been  long  before  his  mind,  and  upon  which  he  had 
gathered  all  the  essential  points  by  observation 
and  by  a study  of  the  multitude  of  speeches  and 
essays  with  which  the  country  had  been  deluged. 
These  early  speeches,  like  some  of  the  best  of 
his  prime,  although  nominally  unprepared,  were 
poured  forth  from  the  overflowing  resources  which 
had  been  the  fruit  of  months  of  reflection,  and 
which  had  been  stored  up  by  an  unyielding  mem- 
ory. They  had  really  been  in  preparation  ever 
since  the  embargo  pamphlet  of  1808,  and  that  was 
one  reason  for  their  ripeness  and  terseness,  for 
their  easy  flow  and  condensed  force.  I have  ex- 
amined with  care  the  debates  in  that  Congress. 
There  were  many  able  and  experienced  speakers 
on  the  floor.  Mr.  Clay,  it  is  true,  took  no  part, 
and  early  in  the  session  went  to  Europe.  But 
Mr.  Calhoun  led  in  debate,  and  there  were  many 
others  second  only  to  him.  Among  all  the  speeches, 
however,  Mr.  Webster’s  stand  out  in  sharp  relief. 
His  utterances  were  as  clear  and  direct  as  those 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  but  they  had  none  of  the  South 
Carolinian’s  dryness.  We  can  best  judge  of  their 
merit  and  their  effect  by  comparing  them  with 
those  of  his  associates.  They  were  not  only  forci- 
ble, but  they  were  vivid  also  and  full  of  life,  and  his 
words  when  he  was  roused  fell  like  the  blows  of 
a hammer  on  an  anvil.  They  lacked  the  polish  and 
richness  of  his  later  efforts,  but  the  force  and  power 


58 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


\ 


of  statement  and  the  purity  of  diction  were  all 
there,  and  men  began  to  realize  that  one  destined 
to  great  achievements  had  entered  the  field  of 
American  politics. 

This  was  very  appai’ent  when  Mr.  Webster  came 
back  to  Washington  for  the  extra  session  called  in 
September,  1814.  Although  he  had  made  previ- 
ously but  two  set  speeches,  and  had  taken  compar- 
atively little  part  in  every-day  debate,  he  was  now 
acknowledged,  after  his  few  months  of  service,  to 
be  one  of  the  foremost  men  in  the  House,  and  the 
strongest  leader  in  his  party.  He  differed  some- 
what at  this  time  from  the  prevailing  sentiment  of 
the  Federalists  in  New  England,  for  the  guiding 
principle  of  his  life,  his  love  of  nationality,  over- 
rode all  other  influences.  He  discountenanced  the 
measures  which  led  to  the  Hartford  Convention, 
and  he  helped  to  keep  New  Hampshire  out  of  that 
movement ; but  it  is  an  entire  mistake  to  represent 
him  as  an  independent  Federalist  at  this  period. 
The  days  of  Mr.  Webster’s  independent  politics 
came  later,  when  the  Federalists  had  ceased  to 
exist  as  a party  and  when  no  new  ties  had  been 
formed.  In  the  winter  of  1814  and  1815,  although, 
like  many  of  the  moderate  Federalists,  he  disap- 
proved of  the  separatist  movement  in  New  Eng- 
land, on  all  other  party  questions  he  acted  con- 
sistently with  the  straitest  of  the  sect.  Sensibly 
enough,  he  did  not  consider  the  convention  at 
Hartford,  although  he  had  nothing  to  do  with 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  59 

it,  either  treasonable  or  seditions ; and  yet,  much 
as  he  disliked  its  supposed  purposes,  he  did  not 
hesitate,  in  a speech  on  the  Enlistment  Bill,  to  use 
them  as  a threat  to  deter  the  administration  from 
war  measures.  This  was  a favorite  Federalist 
practice,  gloomily  to  point  out  at  this  time  the 
gathering  clouds  of  domestic  strife,  in  order  to 
turn  the  administration  back  from  war,  that  poor 
frightened  administration  of  Mr.  Madison,  which 
had  for  months  been  clutching  frantically  at  every 
sti'aw  which  seemed  to  promise  a chance  of  peace. 

But  although  Mr.  Webster  went  as  steadily  and 
even  more  strongly  with  his  party  in  this  session, 
he  did  more  and  better  service  than  ever  before, 
partly,  perhaps,  because  on  the  questions  which 
arose,  his  party  was,  in  the  main,  entirely  right. 
The  strength  of  his  party  feeling  is  shown  by  his 
attitude  in  regard  to  the  war  taxes,  upon  which 
made  a quiet  but  effective  speech.  He  took  the 
ground  that,  as  a member  of  the  minority,  he  could 
not  prevent  the  taxes  nor  stop  hostilities,  but  he 
could  protest  against  the  war,  its  conduct,  and  its 
authors,  by  voting  against  the  taxes.  There  is  a 
nice  question  of  political  ethics  here  as  to  how  far 
an  opposition  ought  to  go  in  time  of  national  war 
and  distress,  but  it  is  certainly  impossible  to  give 
a more  extreme  expression  to  parliamentary  oppo- 
sition than  to  refuse  the  supplies  at  a most  critical 
moment  in  a severe  conflict.  To  this  last  extreme 
of  party  opposition  to  the  administration,  Mr. 


60 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Webster  went.  It  was  as  far  as  he  could  go  and 
remain  loyal  to  the  Union.  But  there  he  stopped 
absolutely.  With  the  next  step,  which  went  out- 
side the  Union,  and  which  his  friends  at  home 
were  considering,  he  would  have  nothing  to  do, 
and  he  would  not  countenance  any  separatist 
schemes.  In  the  national  Congress,  however,  he 
was  prepared  to  advance  as  far  as  the  boldest  and 
bitterest  in  opposition,  and  he  either  voted  against 
the  war  taxes  or  abstained  from  voting  on  them, 
in  company  with  the  strictest  partisans  of  the 
Pickering  type. 

There  is  no  need  to  suppose  from  this  that  Mr. 
Webster  had  lost  in  the  least  the  liberality  or 
breadth  of  view  which  always  characterized  him. 
He  was  no  narrower  then  than  when  he  entered 
Congress,  or  than  when  he  left  it.  He  went  with 
hi§  party  because  he  believed  it  to  be  right,  — as 
at  that  moment  it  undoubtedly  was.  The  party, 
however,  was  still  extreme  and  bitter,  as  it  had 
been  for  ten  years,  but  Mr.  Webster  was  neither. 
He  went  all  lengths  with  his  friends  in  Con- 
gress, but  he  did  not  share  their  intensity  of  feel- 
ing or  their  fierce  hostility  to  individuals.  The 
Federalists,  for  instance,  as  a rule  had  ceased  to 
' call  upon  Mr.  Madison,  but  in  such  intolerance 
Mr.  Webster  declined  to  indulge.  He  was  al- 
ways on  good  terms  with  the  President  and  with 
all  the  hostile  leaders.  His  opposition  was  extreme 
in  principle,  but  not  in  manner  ; it  was  vigorous 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  61 

and  uncompromising,  but  also  stately  and  dignified. 
It  was  part  of  bis  large  and  indolent  nature  to  ac- 
cept much  and  question  little ; to  take  the  ideas 
most  easy  and  natural  to  him,  those  of  his  friends 
and  associates,  and  of  his  native  New  England, 
without  needless  inquiry  and  investigation.  It 
was  part  of  the  same  nature,  also,  to  hold  liberal 
views  after  he  had  fairly  taken  sides,  and  never,  by 
confounding  individuals  with  principles  and  pur- 
poses, to  import  into  politics  the  fiery,  biting  ele- 
ment of  personal  hatred  and  malice. 

His  position  in  the  House  once  assured,  we  find 
Mr.  Webster  taking  a much  more  active  part  in 
the  daily  debates  than  before.  On  these  occa- 
sions we  hear  of  his  “ deliberate,  conversational  ” 
manner,  another  of  the  lessons  learned  from  Mr. 
Mason  when  that  gentleman,  standing  so  close  to 
the  jury-box  that  he  could  have  “ laid  his  finger  on 
the  foreman’s  nose,”  as  Mr.  Webster  said,  chatted 
easily  with  each  juryman,  and  won  a succession 
of  verdicts.  But  besides  the  daily  debate,  Mr. 
Webster  spoke  at  length  on  several  important  oc- 
casions. This  was  the  case  with  the  Enlistment 
Bill,  which  involved  a forced  draft,  including 
minors,  and  was  deemed  unconstitutional  by  the 
Federalists.  Mr.  Webster  had  “ a hand,”  as  he 
puts  it,  — a strong  one,  we  may  be  sure,  — in  kill- 
ing “ Mr.  Monroe’s  conscription.” 

The  most  important  measure,  however,  with 
which  Mr.  Webster  was  called  to  deal,  and  to  which 


62 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


lie  gave  liis  best  efforts,  was  the  attempt  to  establish 
a national  bank.  There  were  three  parties  in  the 
House  on  this  question.  The  first  represented  the 
“ old  Republican  ” doctrines,  and  was  opposed  to 
any  bank.  The  second  represented  the  theories  of 
Hamilton  and  the  Federalists,  and  favored  a bank 
with  a reasonable  capital,  specie-paying,  and  free 
to  decide  about  making  loans  to  the  government. 
The  third  body  was  composed  of  members  of  the 
national  war-party,  who  were  eager  for  a bank 
merely  to  help  the  government  out  of  its  appall- 
ing difficulties.  They,  therefore,  favored  an  insti- 
tution of  large  capital,  non-specie-paying,  and 
obliged  to  make  heavy  loans  to  the  government, 
which  involved,  of  course,  an  irredeemable  paper 
currency.  In  a word,  there  was  the  party  of  no 
bank,  the  party  of  a specie  bank,  and  the  party  of 
a huge  paper-money  bank.  The  second  of  these 
parties,  with  which  of  course  Mr.  Webster  acted, 
held  the  key  of  the  situation.  No  bank  could  be 
established  unless  it  was  based  on  their  princi- 
ples. The  first  bill,  proposing  a paper-money 
bank,  originated  in  the  House,  and  was  killed 
there  by  a strong  majority,  Mr.  Webster  making 
a long  speech  against  it  which  has  not  been  pre- 
served. The  next  bill  came  from  the  Senate,  and 
was  also  for  a paper-money  bank.  Against  this 
scheme  Mr.  Webster  made  a second  elaborate 
speech,  which  is  reprinted  in  his  works.  His 
genius  for  arranging  and  stating  facts  held  its  full 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  63 

strength  in  questions  of  finance,  and  he  now  es- 
tablished his  reputation  as  a master  in  that  diffi- 
cult department  of  statesmanship.  His  recent 
studies  of  economical  questions  in  late  English 
works  and  in  English  history  gave  freshness  to 
what  he  said,  and  in  clearness  of  argument,  in 
range  of  view,  and  wisdom  of  judgment,  he  showed 
himself  a worthy  disciple  of  the  school  of  Hamil- 
ton. His  argument  proceeded  on  the  truest  eco- 
nomical and  commercial  principles,  and  was,  in- 
deed, unanswerable.  He  then  took  his  stand  as 
the  foe  of  irredeemable  paper,  whether  in  war  or 
peace,  and  of  wild,  unrestrained  banking,  a position 
from  which  he  never  wavered,  and  in  suppoi't  of 
which  he  rendered  to  the  country  some  of  his  best 
service  as  a public  man.  The  bill  was  defeated 
by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Speaker.  When  the 
result  was  announced,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  utterly 
overwhelmed.  He  cared  little  for  the  bank  but 
deeply  for  the  government,  which,  as  it  was  not 
known  that  peace  had  been  made,  seemed  to  be 
on  the  verge  of  ruin.  He  came  over  to  Mr.  Web- 
ster, and,  bursting  into  tears,  begged  the  latter  to 
aid  in  establishing  a proper  bank,  a request  which 
was  freely  granted. 

The  vote  was  then  reconsidered,  the  bill  recom- 
mitted and  brought  back,  with  a reduced  capital, 
and  freed  from  the  government  power  to  force 
loans  and  suspend  specie  payments.  This  meas- 
ure was  passed  by  a large  majority,  composed  of 


64 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


the  Federalists  and  the  friends  of  the  government, 
but  it  was  the  plan  of  the  former  which  had  pre- 
vailed. The  President  vetoed  the  bill  for  a vari- 
ety of  reasons,  duly  stated,  but  really,  as  Mr. 
Webster  said,  because  a sound  bank  of  this  sort 
was  not  in  favor  with  the  administration.  An- 
other paper-money  scheme  was  introduced,  and 
the  conflict  began  again,  but  was  abruptly  termi- 
nated by  the  news  of  peace,  and  on  March  4 the 
thirteenth  Congress  came  to  an  end. 

The  fourteenth  Congress,  to  which  he  had  been 
reelected,  Mr.  Webster  said  many  years  afterward, 
was  the  most  remarkable  for  talents  of  any  he 
had  ever  seen.  To  the  leaders  of  marked  ability 
in  the  previous  Congress,  most  of  whom  had 
been  reelected,  several  others  were  added.  Mr. 
Clay  returned  from  Europe  to  take  again  an  ac- 
tive part.  Mr.  Pinkney,  the  most  eminent  prac- 
tising lawyer  in  the  country,  recently  Attorney- 
General  and  Minister  to  England,  whom  John 
Randolph,  with  characteristic  insolence,  “ believed 
to  be  from  Maryland,”  was  there  until  his  ap- 
pointment to  the  Russian  mission.  Last,  but  not 
least,  there  was  John  Randolph  himself,  wildly 
eccentric  and  venomously  eloquent,  — sometimes 
witty,  always  odd  and  amusing,  talking  incessantly 
on  everything,  so  that  the  reporters  gave  him  up 
in  despair,  and  with  whom  Mr.  Webster  came  to 
a definite  understanding  before  the  close  of  the 
session. 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  65 

Mr.  Webster  did  not  take  liis  seat  until  Feb- 
ruary, being  detained  at  the  North  by  the  illness 
of  his  daughter  Grace.  When  he  arrived  he  found 
Congress  at  work  upon  a bank  bill  possessing  the 
same  objectionable  features  of  paper  money  and 
large  capital  as  the  former  schemes  which  he  had 
helped  to  overthrow.  He  began  his  attack  upon 
this  dangerous  plan  by  considering  the  evil  condi- 
tion of  the  currency.  He  showed  that  the  cur- 
rency of  the  United  States  was  sound  because  it 
was  gold  and  silver,  in  his  opinion  the  only  con- 
stitutional medium,  but  that  the  country  was 
flooded  by  the  irredeemable  paper  of  the  state 
banks.  Congress  could  not  regulate  the  state 
banks,  but  they  could  force  them  to  specie  pay- 
ments by  refusing  to  receive  any  notes  which  were 
not  paid  in  specie  by  the  bank  which  issued  them. 
Passing  to  the  pi’oposed  national  bank,  he  reiter- 
ated the  able  arguments  which  he  had  made  in 
the  previous  Congress  against  the  large  capital, 
the  power  to  suspend  specie  payments,  and  the 
stock  feature  of  the  bank,  which  he  thought  would 
lead  to  speculation  and  control  by  the  state  banks. 
This  last  point  is  the  first, instance  of  that  finan- 
cial foresight  for'which  Mr.  Webster  was  so  re- 
markable, and  which  shows  so  plainly  the  sound- 
ness of  his  knowledge  in  regard  to  economical 
matters.  A violent  speculation  in  bank  stock  did 
ensue,  and  the  first  years  of  the  new  institution 
were  troubled,  disorderly,  and  anything  but  cred- 
5 


66 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ifcable.  The  opposition  of  Mr.  Webster  and  those 
who  thought  with  him,  resulted  in  the  reduction 
of  the  capital  and  the  removal  of  the  power  to 
suspend  specie  payments.  But  although  shorn  of 
its  most  obnoxious  features,  Mr.  Webster  voted 
against  the  bill  on  its  final  passage  on  account  of  the 
participation  permitted  to  the  government  in  its 
management.  He  was  quite  right,  but,  after  the 
bank  was  well  established,  he  supported  it  as  Lord 
Thurlow  promised  to  do  in  regard  to  the  dissent- 
er’s religion.  Indeed,  Mr.  Webster  ultimately 
so  far  lost  his  original  dislike  to  this  bank  that 
he  became  one  of  its  warmest  adherents.  The 
plan  was  defective,  but  the  scheme,  on  the  whole, 
worked  better  than  had  been  expected. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  bank  bill, 
Mr.  Calhoun  introduced  a bill  requiring  the  rev- 
enue to  be  collected  in  lawful  money  of  the  United 
States.  A sharp  debate  ensued,  and  the  bill  was 
lost.  Mr.  Webster  at  once  offered  resolutions  re- 
quiring all  government  dues  to  be  paid  in  coin, 
in  Treasury  notes,  or  in  notes  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  He  supported  these  resolutions, 
thus  daringly  put  forward  just  after  the  princi- 
ple they  involved  had  been  voted  down,  in  a speech 
of  singular  power,  clear,  convincing,  and  full  of 
information  and  illustration.  He  elaborated  the 
ideas  contained  in  his  previous  remarks  on  the 
currency,  displaying  with  great  force  the  evils  of 
irredeemable  paper,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  67 

a sound  currency  based  on  specie  payments.  He 
won  a signal  victory  by  the  passage  of  bis  resolu- 
tions, which  brought  about  resumption,  and,  after 
the  bank  was  firmly  established,  gave  us  a sound 
currency  and  a safe  medium  of  exchange.  This 
was  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  services  ever 
rendered  by  Mr.  Webster  to  the  business  interests 
and  good  government  of  the  country,  and  he  de- 
serves the  full  credit,  for  he  triumphed  where 
Mr.  Calhoun  had  just  been  defeated. 

Mr.  Webster  took  more  or  less  part  in  all  the 
questions  which  afterwards  arose  in  the  House, 
especially  on  the  tariff,  but  his  great  efforts  were 
those  devoted  to  the  bank  and  the  currency.  The 
only  other  incident  of  the  session  was  an  invitation 
to  fight  a duel  sent  him  by  John  Randolph.  This 
was  the  only  challenge  ever  received  by  Mr.  Web- 
ster. He  never  could  have  seemed  a very  happy 
subject  for  such  missives,  and,  moreover,  he  never 
indulged  in  language  calculated  to  provoke  them. 
Randolph,  however,  would  have  challenged  any- 
body or  anything,  from  Henry  Clay  to  a field- 
mouse,  if  the  fancy  happened  to  strike  him.  Mr. 
Webster’s  reply  is  a model  of  dignity  and  veiled 
contempt.  He  refused  to  admit  Randolph’s  right 
to  an  explanation,  alluded  to  that  gentleman’s 
lack  of  com*tesy  in  the  House,  denied  his  right  to 
call  him  out,  and  wound  up  by  saying  that  he 
did  not  feel  bound  to  risk  his  life  at  any  one’s 
bidding,  but  should  “ always  be  prepared  to  repel, 


68 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


in  a suitable  manner,  tbe  aggression  of  any  man 
who  may  presume  on  this  refusal.”  One  cannot 
help  smiling  over  this  last  clause,  with  its  sugges- 
tion of  personal  violence,  as  the  two  men  rise  be- 
fore the  fancy,  — the  big,  swarthy  black-haired 
son  of  the  northern  hills,  with  his  robust  com- 
mon sense,  and  the  sallow,  lean,  sickly  Virginia 
planter,  not  many  degrees  removed  mentally  from 
the  patients  in  Bedlam. 

In  the  affairs  of  the  next  session  of  the  four- 
teenth Congress  Mr.  Webster  took  scarcely  any 
part.  He  voted  for  Mr.  Calhoun’s  internal  im- 
provement bill,  although  without  entering  the  de- 
bate, and  he  also  voted  to  pass  the  bill  over  Mr. 
Madison’s  veto.  This  was  sound  Hamiltonian 
Federalism,  and  in  entire  consonance  with  the  na- 
tional sentiments  of  Mr.  Webster.  On  the  con- 
stitutional point,  which  he  is  said  to  have  exam- 
ined with  some  care,  he  decided  in  accordance 
with  the  opinions  of  his  party,  and  with  the  doc- 
trine of  liberal  construction,  to  which  he  always 
adhered. 

On  March  4,  1817,  the  fourteenth  Congress 
expired,  and  with  it  the  term  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
service.  Five  years  were  to  intervene  before  he 
again  appeared  in  the  arena  of  national  politics. 
This  retirement  from  active  public  life  was  due 
to  professional  reasons.  In  nine  years  Mr.  Web- 
ster had  attained  to  the  very  summit  of  his  pro- 
fession in  New  Hampshire.  He  was  earning  two 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  69 

thousand  dollars  a year,  and  in  that  hardy  and 
poor  community  he  could  not  hope  to  earn  more. 
To  a man  with  such  great  and  productive  tal- 
ents, and  with  a growing  family,  a larger  field 
had  become  an  absolute  necessity.  In  June,  1816, 
therefore,  Mr.  Webster  removed  from  Portsmouth 
to  Boston.  That  he  gained  by  the  change  is  ap- 
parent from  the  fact  that  the  first  year  after  his 
removal  his  professional  income  did  not  fall  short 
of  twenty  thousand  dollars.  The  first  suggestion 
of  the  possibilities  of  wealth  offered  to  his  abili- 
ties in  a suitable  field  came  from  his  going  to 
Washington.  There,  in  the  winter  of  1813  and 
1814,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  before  which  he  tried 
two  or  three  cases,  and  this  opened  the  vista  of  a 
professional  career,  which  he  felt  would  give  him 
verge  and  room  enough,  as  well  as  fit  remunera- 
tion. From  this  beginning  the  Supreme  Court 
practice,  which  soon  led  to  the  removal  to  Boston, 
rapidly  increased,  until,  in  the  last  session  of  his 
term,  it  occupied  most  of  his  time.  This  with- 
drawal from  the  duties  of  Congress,  however,  was 
not  due  to  a sacrifice  of  his  time  to  his  profes- 
sional engagements,  but  to  the  depression  caused 
by  his  first  great  grief,  which  must  have  rendered 
the  noise  and  dust  rf  debate  .most  distasteful  to 
him.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Webster  had  arrived  in 
Washington  for  this  last  session,  in  December, 
1816,  and  were  recalled  to  Boston  by  the  illness 


70 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


of  their  little  daughter  Grace,  who  was  their  old- 
est child,  singularly  bright  and  precocious,  with 
much  of  her  father's  look  and  talent,  and  of  her 
mother’s  sensibility.  She  was  a favorite  with  her 
father,  and  tenderly  beloved  by  him.  After  her 
parents’  return  she  sank  rapidly,  the  victim  of 
consumption.  When  the  last  hour  was  at  hand, 
the  child,  rousing  from  sleep,  asked  for  her  father. 
He  came,  raised  her  upon  his  arm,  and,  as  he  did 
so,  she  smiled  upon  him  and  died.  It  is  a little 
incident  in  the  life  of  a great  man,  but  a child’s 
instinct  does  not  err  at  such  a moment,  and  her 
dying  smile  sheds  a flood  of  soft  light  upon  the 
deep  and  warm  affections  of  Mr.  Webster’s  sol- 
emn and  reserved  nature.  It  was  the  first  great 
grief.  Mr.  W ebster  wept  convulsively  as  he  stood 
beside  the  dead,  and  those  who  saw  that  stately 
creature  so  wrung  by  anguish  of  the  heart  never 
forgot  the  sight. 

Thus  the  period  which  began  at  Portsmouth  in 
1807  closed  in  Boston,  in  1817,  with  the  death  of 
the  eldest  born.  In  that  decade  Mr.  Webster  had 
advanced  with  great  strides  from  the  position  of 
a raw  and  youthful  lawyer  in  a back  country  town 
of  New  Hampshire.  He  had  reached  the  highest 
professional  eminence  in  his  own  State,  and  had 
removed  to  a wider  sphere,  where  he  at  once  took 
rank  with  the  best  lawyers.  He  was  a leading 
practitioner  in  the  highest  national  court.  During 
his  two  terms  in  Congress  he  had  become  a leader 


LAW  AND  POLITICS  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  71 

of  bis  party,  and  had  won  a solid  national  reputa- 
tion. In  those  years  he  had  rendered  conspicuous 
service  to  the  business  interests  of  the  nation,  and 
had  established  himself  as  one  of  the  ablest  states- 
men of  the  country  in  matters  of  finance.  He 
had  defined  his  position  on  the  tariff  as  a free- 
trader in  theory  and  a very  moderate  protection- 
ist when  protection  was  unavoidable,  a true  repre- 
sentative of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  England 
Federalists.  He  had  taken  up  his  ground  as  the 
champion  of  specie  payments  and  of  the  liberal 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  which  author- 
ized internal  improvements.  While  he  had  not 
shrunk  from  extreme  opposition  to  the  adminis- 
tration during  the  war,  he  had  kept  himself  en- 
tirely clear  from  the  separatist  sentiment  of  New 
England  in  the  year  1814.  He  left  Congress  with 
a realizing  sense  of  his  own  growing  powers,  and, 
rejoicing  in  his  strength,  he  turned  to  his  profes- 
sion and  to  his  new  duties  in  his  new  home. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  — MR.  WEB- 
STER AS  A LAWYER. 

There  is  a vague  tradition  that  when  Mr. 
Webster  took  up  his  residence  in  Boston,  some  of 
the  worthies  of  that  ancient  Puritan  town  were 
disposed  at  first  to  treat  him  rather  cavalierly  and 
make  him  understand  that  because  he  was  great 
in  New  Hampshire  it  did  not  follow  that  he  was 
also  great  in  Massachusetts.  They  found  very 
quickly,  however,  that  it  was  worse  than  useless 
to  attempt  anything  of  this  sort  with  a man  who, 
by  his  mere  look  and  presence  whenever  he  en- 
tered a room,  drew  all  eyes  to  himself  and  hushed 
the  murmur  of  conversation.  It  is  certain  that 
Mr.  Webster  soon  found  himself  the  friend  and 
associate  of  all  the  agreeable  and  distinguished 
men  of  the  town,  and  that  he  rapidly  acquired  that 
general  popularity  which,  in  those  days,  went  with 
him  everywhere.  It  is  also  certain  that  he  at 
once  and  without  effort  assumed  the  highest  posi- 
tion at  the  bar  as  the  recognized  equal  of  its  most 
eminent  leaders.  With  an  income  increased  ten- 
fold and  promising  still  further  enlargement,  a 
practice  in  which  one  fee  probably  surpassed  the 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  73 

earnings  of  three  months  in  New  Hampshire,  with 
an  agreeable  society  about  him,  popular  abroad, 
happy  and  beloved  at  home,  nothing  could  have 
been  more  auspicious  than  these  opening  years  of 
his  life  in  Boston. 

The  period  upon  which  he  then  entered,  and 
during  which  he  withdrew  from  active  public  ser- 
vice to  devote  himself  to  his  profession,  was  a 
very  important  one  in  his  career.  It  was  a period 
marked  by  a rapid  intellectual  growth  and  by  the 
first  exhibition  of  his  talents  on  a large  scale.  It 
embraces,  moreover,  two  events,  landmarks  in  the 
life  of  Mr.  Webster,  which  placed  him  before  the 
country  as  one  of  the  first  and  the  most  eloquent 
of  her  constitutional  lawyers,  and  as  the  great 
master  in  the  art  of  occasional  oratory.  The  first 
of  these  events  was  the  argument  in  the  Dart- 
mouth College  case ; the  second  was  the  delivery 
of  the  Plymouth  oration. 

I do  not  propose  to  enter  into  or  discuss  the 
merits  or  demerits  of  the  constitutional  and  legal 
theories  and  principles  involved  in  the  famous 
“ college  causes,”  or  in  any  other  of  the  great 
cases  subsequently  argued  by  Mr.  Webster.  In  a 
biography  of  this  kind  it  is  sufficient  to  examine 
Mr.  Webster’s  connection  with  the  Dartmouth 
College  case,  and  endeavor,  by  a study  of  his  argu- 
ments in  that  and  in  certain  other  hardly  less  im- 
portant causes,  to  estimate  properly  the  character 
and  quality  of  his  abilities  as  a lawyer,  both  in 


74 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  term  and  in  deal- 
ing with  constitutional  questions. 

The  complete  history  of  the  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege case  is  very  curious  and  deserves  more  than  a 
passing  notice.  Until  within  three  years  it  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  it  was  quite  unknown,  and 
its  condition  is  but  little  better  now.  In  1879  Mr. 
John  M.  Shirley  published  a volume  entitled  the 
“ Dartmouth  College  Causes,”  which  is  a mon- 
ument of  careful  study  and  thorough  research. 
Most  persons  would  conclude  that  it  was  a work 
of  merely  legal  interest,  appealing  to  a limited 
class  of  professional  readers.  Even  those  into 
whose  hands  it  chanced  to  come  have . probably 
been  deterred  from  examining  it  as  it  deserves  by 
the  first  chapter,  which  is  very  obscure,  and  by 
the  confusion  of  the  narrative  which  follows.  Yet 
this  monograph,  which  has  so  unfortunately  suf- 
fered from  a defective  arrangement  of  material,  is 
of  very  great  value,  not  only  to  our  legal  and  con- 
stitutional history,  but  to  the  political  history  of 
the  time  and  to  a knowledge  of  the  distinguished 
actors  in  a series  of  events  which  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  one  of  the  most  far-reaching  of 
constitutional  doctrines,  one  that  has  been  a living 
question  ever  since  the  year  1819,  and  is  at  this 
moment  of  vast  practical  importance.  Mr.  Shir- 
ley has  drawn  forth  from  the  oblivion  of  manu- 
script a collection  of  documents  which,  taken  in 
conjunction  with  those  already  in  print,  throws  a 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


75 


flood  of  light  upon  a dark  place  of  the  past  and 
gives  to  a dry  constitutional  question  the  vital  and 
human  interest  of  political  and  personal  history. 

In  his  early  days,  Eleazer  Wheelock,  the  founder 
of  Dartmouth  College,  had  had  much  religious 
controversy  with  Dr.  Bellamy  of  Connecticut,  who 
was  like  himself  a graduate  of  Yale.  Wheelock 
was  a Presbyterian  and  a liberal,  Bellamy  a Con- 
gregationalist  and  strictly  orthodox.  The  charter 
of  Dartmouth  was  free  from  any  kind  of  religious 
discrimination.  By  his  will  the  elder  Wheelock 
provided  in  such  a way  that  his  son  succeeded 
him  in  the  presidency  of  the  college.  In  1793 
Judge  Niles,  a pupil  of  Bellamy,  became  a trustee 
of  the  college,  and  he  and  John  Wheelock  repre- 
sented the  opposite  views  which  they  respectively 
inherited  from  tutor  and  father.  They  were 
formed  for  mutual  hostility,  and  the  contest  be- 
gan some  twelve  years  before  it  reached  the  pub- 
lic. The  trustees  and  the  president  were  then  all 
Federalists,  and  there  would  seem  to  have  been 
no  differences  of  either  a political  or  a religious 
nature.  The  trouble  arose  from  the  resistance  of 
a minority  of  the  trustees  to  what  they  termed 
the  “ family  dynasty.”  Wheelock,  however,  main- 
tained his  ascendency  until  1809,  when  his  ene- 
mies obtained  a majority  in  the  board  of  trustees, 
and  thereafter  admitted  tio  friend  of  the  president 
to  the  government,  and  used  every  effort  to  sub- 
due the  dominant  dynasty. 


76 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


In  New  Hampshire,  at  that  period,  the  Federal- 
ists were  the  ruling  party,  and  the  Congregational- 
ists  formed  the  state  church.  The  people  were,  in 
practice,  taxed  to  support  Congregational  churches, 
and  the  clergy  of  that  denomination  were  ex- 
empted from  taxation.  All  the  Congregational 
ministers  were  stanch  Federalists  and  most  of 
their  parishioners  were  of  the  same  party.  The 
college,  the  only  seat  of  learning  in  the  State,  was 
one  of  the  Federalist  and  Congregational  strong- 
holds. 

After  several  years  of  fruitless  and  bitter  con- 
flict, the  Wheelock  party,  in  1815,  brought  their 
grievances  before  the  public  in  an  elaborate  pam- 
phlet. This  led  to  a rejoinder  and  a war  of 
pamphlets  ensued,  which  was  soon  transferred  to 
the  newspapers,  and  created  a great  sensation  and 
a profound  interest.  Wheelock  now  contemplated 
legal  proceedings.  Mr.  Plumer  was  in  ill  health, 
Judge  Smith  and  Mr.  Mason  were  allied  with  the 
trustees,  and  the  president  therefore  went  to  Mr. 
Webster,  consulted  him  professionally,  paid  him, 
and  obtained  a promise  of  his  future  services. 
About  the  time  of  this  consultation,  Wheelock 
'Sent  a memorial  to  the  Legislature,  charging  the 
trustees  with  misapplication  of  the  funds,  and  va- 
rious breaches  of  trust,  religious  intolerance,  and 
a violation  of  the  charter  in  their  attacks  upon 
the  presidential  office,  and  prayed  for  a commit- 
tee of  investigation.  The  trustees  met  him  boldly 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  77 

and  offered  a sturdy  resistance,  denying  all  the 
charges,  especially  that  of  religious  intolerance  ; 
but  the  committee  was  voted  by  a large  majority. 
On  August  5th,  Wheelock,  as  soon  as  he  learned 
that  the  committee  was  to  have  a hearing,  wrote 
to  Mr.  Webster,  reminding  him  of  their  consulta- 
tion, inclosing  a fee  of  twenty  dollars,  and  asking 
him  to  appear  before  the  committee.  Mr.  Web- 
ster did  not  come,  and  Wheelock  had  to  go  on  as 
best  he  could  without  him.  One  of  Wheelock’s 
friends,  Mr.  Dunham,  wrote  a very  indignant  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Webster  on  his  failure  to  appear ; to 
which  Mr.  Webster  replied  that  he  had  seen 
Wheelock  and  they  had  contemplated  a suit  in 
court,  but  that  at  the  time  of  the  hearing  he  was 
otherwise  engaged,  and  moreover  that  he  did  not 
regard  a summons  to  appear  before  a legislative 
committee  as  a professional  call,  adding  that  he  was 
by  no  means  sure  that  the  president  was  wholly 
in  the  right.  The  truth  was,  that  many  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  strongest  personal  and  political  friends, 
and  most  of  the  leaders  with  whom  he  was  associ- 
ated in  the  control  of  the  Federalist  party,  were 
either  trustees  themselves  or  closely  allied  with 
the  trustees.  In  the  interval  between  the  consul- 
tation with  Wheelock  and  the  committee  hearing, 
these  friends  and  leaders  saw  Mr.  Webster,  and 
pointed  out  to  him  that  he  must  not  desert  them, 
and  that  this  college  controversy  was  fast  develop- 
ing into  a party  question.  Mr.  Webster  was  con- 


78 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


^/vinced,  and  abandoned  Wheelock,  making,  as  has 
been  seen,  a very  unsatisfactory  explanation  of  his 
conduct.  In  this  way  he  finally  parted  company 
with  Wheelock,  and  was  thereafter  irrevocably 
engaged  on  the  side  of  the  trustees. 

Events  now  moved  rapidly.  The  trustees,  with- 
out heeding  the  advice  of  Mr.  Mason  to  delay, 
removed  Wheelock  from  the  presidency,  and  ap- 
pointed in  his  place  the  Rev.  Francis  Brown. 
This  fanned  the  flame  of  popular  excitement,  and 
such  a defiance  of  the  legislative  committee  threw 
the  whole  question  into  politics.  As  Mr.  Mason 
had  foreseen  when  he  warned  the  trustees  against 
hasty  action,  all  the  Democrats,  all  members  of 
sects  other  than  the  Congregational,  and  all  free- 
thinkers generally,  were  united  against  the  trus- 
tees, and  consequently  against  the  Federalists. 
The  election  came  on.  Wheelock,  who  was  a 
Federalist,  went  over  to  the  enemy,  carrying  his 
friends  with  him,  and  Mr.  Plumer,  the  Democratic 
candidate,  was  elected  Governor,  together  with  a 
Democratic  Legislature.  Mr.  Webster  perceived 
once  that  the  trustees  were  in  a bad  position. 
He  advised  that  every  effort  should  be  made  to 
soothe  the  Democrats,  and  that  the  purpose  of 
founding  a new  college  should  be  noised  abroad, 
in  order  to  create  alarm.  Strategy,  however,  was 
vain.  Governor  Plumer  declared  against  the  trus- 
tees in  his  message,  and  the  Legislature  in  June, 
1816,  despite  every  sort  of  protest  and  remon- 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  79 

strance,  passed  an  act  to  reorganize  the  college, 
and  virtually  to  place  it  within  the  control  of  the 
State.  The  Governor  and  council  at  once  pro- 
ceeded to  choose  trustees  and  overseers  under  the 
new  law,  and  among  those  thus  selected  was  Jo- 
seph Story  of  Massachusetts. 

Both  boards  of  trustees  assembled.  The  old 
hoard  turned  out  Judge  Woodward,  their  secre- 
tary, who  was  a friend  to  Wheelock  and  secretary 
also  of  the  new  board,  and,  receiving  a thousand 
dollars  from  a friend  of  one  of  the  professors,  re- 
solved to  fight.  President  Brown  I’efused  to  obey 
the  summons  of  the  new  trustees,  who  expelled 
the  old  board  by  resolution.  Thereupon  the  old 
board  brought  suit  against  Woodward  for  the  col- 
lege seal  and  other  property,  and  the  case  came 
on  for  trial  in  May,  1817.  Mr.  Mason  and  Judge 
Smith  appeared  for  the  college,  George  Sullivan 
and  Ichabod  Bartlett  for  Woodward  and  the  state 
board.  The  case  was  argued  and  then  went  over 
to  the  September  term  of  the  same  year,  at  Exe- 
ter, when  Mason  and  Smith  were  joined  by  Mr. 
W ebster. 

The  cause  was  then  argued  again  on  both  sides 
and  with  signal  ability.  In  point  of  talent  the 
counsel  for  the  college  were  vastly  superior  to  their 
opponents,  but  Sullivan  and  Bartlett  were  never- 
theless strong  men  and  thoroughly  prepared.  Sul- 
livan was  a good  lawyer  and  a fluent  and  ready 
speaker,  with  great  power  of  illustration.  Bart- 


80 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


lett  was  a shrewd,  hard-headed  man,  very  keen 
and  incisive,  and  one  whom  it  was  impossible  to 
outwit  or  deceive.  He  indulged,  in  his  argument, 
in  some  severe  reflections  upon  Mr.  Webster’s 
conduct  toward  Wheelock,  which  so  much  incensed 
Mr.  Webster  that  he  referred  to  Mr.  Bartlett’s 
argument  in  a most  contemptuous  way,  and  stren- 
uously opposed  the  publication  of  the  remarks 
“ personal  or  injurious  to  counsel.” 

The  weight  of  the  argument  for  the  college  fell 
upon  Mason  and  Smith,  who  spoke  for  two  and 
four  hours  respectively.  Sullivan  and  Bartlett 
occupied  three  hours,  and  the  next  day  Mr.  Web- 
ster closed  for  the  plaintiffs  in  a speech  of  two 
hours.  Mr.  Webster  spoke  with  great  force,  go- 
ing evidently  beyond  the  limits  of  legal  argument, 
and  winding  up  with  a splendid  sentimental  ap- 
peal which  drew  tears  from  the  crowd  in  the  Exe- 
ter court-room,  and  which  he  afterwards  used  in 
an  elaborated  form  and  with  similar  effect  before 
the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington. 

It  now  becomes  necessary  to  state  briefly  the 
points  at  issue  in  this  case,  which  were  all  fully 
argued  by  the  counsel  on  both  sides.  Mr.  Ma- 
son’s brief,  which  really  covered  the  whole  case, 
was  that  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  were  not  ob- 
ligatory, 1,  because  they  were  not  within  the  gen- 
eral scope  of  legislative  power ; 2,  because  they 
violated  certain  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire  restraining  legislative  power;  3, 


TEE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  81 

because  they  violated  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  In  Farrar’s  report  of  Mason’s 
speech,  twenty-three  pages  are  devoted  to  the  first 
point,  eight  to  the  second,  and  six  to  the  third. 
In  other  words,  the  third  point,  involving  the 
great  constitutional  doctrine  on  which  the  case  was 
finally  decided  at  Washington,  the  doctrine  that 
the  Legislature,  by  its  acts,  had  impaired  the  ob- 
ligation of  a contract,  was  passed  over  lightly. 
In  so  doing  Mr.  Mason  was  not  alone.  Neither  he 
nor  Judge  Smith  nor  Mr.  Webster  nor  the  court 
nor  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  attached  much 
importance  to  this  point.  Curiously  enough,  the 
theory  had  been  originated  many  years  before,  by 
Wheelock  himself,  at  a time  when  he  expected 
that  the  minority  of  the  trustees  would  invoke  the 
aid  of  the  Legislature  against  him,  and  his  idea 
had  been  remembered.  It  was  revived  at  the 
time  of  the  newspaper  controversy,  and  was 
pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  trustees  and 
upon  that  of  their  counsel.  But  the  lawyers  at- 
tached little  weight  to  the  suggestion,  although 
they  introduced  it  and  argued  it  briefly.  Mason, 
Smith,  and  Webster  all  relied  for  success  on  the 
ground  covered  by  the  first  point  in  Mason’s 
brief.  This  is  called  by  Mr.  Shirley  the  “ Bar- 
gons  view,”  from  the  fact  that  it  was  largely 
drawn  from  an  argument  made  by  Chief  Justice 
Parsons  in  regard  to  visitatorial  powers  at  Har- 
vard College.  Briefly  stated,  the  argument  was 
6 


82 


DANIEL  WEBSTER.. 


that  the  college  was  an  institution  founded  by  pri- 
vate persons  for  particular  uses  ; that  the  charter 
was  given  to  perpetuate  such  uses  ; that  miscon- 
duct of  the  trustees  was  a question  for  the  courts, 
and  that  the  Legislature,  by  its  interference, 
transcended  its  powers.  To  these  general  prin- 
ciples, sti’engthened  by  particular  clauses  in  the 
Constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  the  counsel  for 
the  college  trusted  for  victory.  The  theory  of  im- 
pairing the  obligation  of  contracts  they  introduced, 
but  they  did  not  insist  on  it,  or  hope  for  much 
from  it.  On  this  point,  however,  and,  of  course, 
on  this  alone,  the  case  went  up  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  In  December,  1817,  Mr.  Webster  wrote 
to  Mr.  Mason,  regretting  that  the  case  went  up 
on  “one  point  only.”  He  occupied  himself  at 
this  time  in  devising  cases  which  should  raise 
what  he  considered  the  really  vital  points,  and 
which,  coming  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States,  could  be  taken  to  the  Circuit 
Court,  and  thence  to  the  Supreme  Court  at  Wash- 
ington. These  cases,  in  accordance  with  his  sug- 
gestion, were  begun,  but  before  they  came  on 
in  the  Circuit  Court,  Mr.  Webster  made  his  great 
effort  in  Washington.  Three  quarters  of  his  le- 
gal argument  were  there  devoted  to  the  points 
in  the  Circuit  Court  cases,  which  were  not  in  any 
way  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  College 
vs.  Woodward.  So  little,  indeed,  did  Mr.  Web- 
ster think  of  the  great  constitutional  question 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  83 

which  has  made  the  case  famous,  that  he  forced 
the  other  points  in  where  he  admitted  that  they 
had  no  proper  standing,  and  argued  them  at 
length.  They  were  touched  upon  by  Marshall, 
who,  however,  decided  wholly  upon  the  constitu- 
tional question,  and  they  were  all  thrown  aside 
by  Judge  Washington,  who  declared  them  irrele- 
vant, and  rested  his  decision  solely  and  properly 
on  the  constitutional  point.  Two  months  after  his 
Washington  argument,  Mr.  Webster,  still  ui’ging 
forward  the  Circuit  Court  cases,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Mason  that  all  the  questions  must  be  brought 
properly  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  that,  on 
the  “ general  principle  ” that  the  State  Legisla- 
ture could  not  divest  vested  rights,  strengthened 
by  the  constitutional  provisions  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, he  was  sure  they  could  defeat  their  adver- 
saries. Thus  this  doctrine  of  “ impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts,”  which  produced  a deci- 
sion in  its  effects  more  far-reaching  and  of  more 
general  interest  than  perhaps  any  other  ever  made 
in  this  country,  was  imported  into  the  case  at  the 
suggestion  of  laymen,  was  little  esteemed  by  coun- 
sel, and  was  comparatively  neglected  in  every 
argument. 

It  is  necessary  to  go  back  now,  for  a moment,  in 
the  history  of  the  case.  The  New  Hampshire 
court  decided  against  the  plaintiffs  on  every  point, 
and  gave  a very  strong  and  elaborate  judgment, 
which  Mr.  Webster  acknowledged  was  “ able. 


84 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


plausible,  and  ingenious.”  After  ranch  -wrang- 
ling, the  counsel  agreed  on  a special  verdict,  and 
took  the  case  up  on  a writ  of  error  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  Mason  and  Smith  were  unable  or  unwill- 
ing to  go  to  Washington,  and  the  case  was  in- 
trusted to  Mr.  Webster,  who  secured  the  assistance 
of  Mr.  Joseph  Hopkinson  of  Philadelphia.  The 
case  for  the  State,  hitherto  ably  managed,  was  now 
confided  to  Mr.  John  Holmes  of  Maine,  and  Mr. 
Wirt,  the  Attorney-General,  who  handled  it  very 
badly.  Holmes,  an  active,  fluent  Democratic  pol- 
itician, made  a noisy,  rhetorical,  political  speech, 
which  pleased  his  opponents  and  disgusted  his 
clients  and  their  friends.  Mr.  Wirt,  loaded  with 
business  cares  of  every  sort,  came  into  court  quite 
unprepared,  and  endeavored  to  make  up  for  his 
deficiencies  by  declamation.  On  the  other  side  the 
case  was  managed  with  consummate  skill.  Hop- 
kinson was  a sound  lawyer,  and,  being  thoroughly 
prepared,  made  a good  legal  ai’gument.  The  bur- 
den of  the  conflict  was,  however,  borne  by  Mr. 
Webster,  who  was  more  interested  personally 
than  professionally,  and  who,  having  raised  money 
in  Boston  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  suit,  came 
into  the  arena  at  Washington  armed  to  the  teeth, 
and  in  the  full  lustre  of  his  great  powers. 

The  case  was  heard  on  March  10,  1818,  and 
was  opened  by  Mr.  Webster.  He  had  studied  the 
arguments  of  his  adversaries  below,  and  the  vig- 
orous hostile  opinion  of  the  New  Hampshire 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  85 

judges.  He  was  in  possession  of  the  thorough 
argument  emanating  from  the  penetrating  mind 
of  Mr.  Mason  and  fortified  and  extended  by  the 
ample  learning  and  judicial  wisdom  of  Judge 
Smith.  To  the  work  of  his  eminent  associates  he 
could  add  nothing  more  than  one  not  very  impor- 
tant point,  and  a few  cases  which  his  far-ranging 
and  retentive  memory  supplied.  All  the  notes, 
minutes,  and  arguments  of  Smith  and  Mason  were 
in  his  hands.  It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Mr. 
Webster  tells  all  this  himself,  and  that  he  gives 
all  credit  to  his  colleagues,  whose  arguments  he 
says  “ he  clumsily  put  together,”  and  of  which  he 
adds  that  he  could  only  be  the  reciter.  The  fac- 
ulty of  obtaining  and  using  the  valuable  work  of 
other  men,  one  of  the  characteristic  qualities  of  a 
high  and  commanding  order  of  mind,  was  even 
then  strong  in  Mr.  Webster.  But  in  that  bright  pe- 
riod of  early  manhood  it  was  accompanied  by  a 
frank  and  generous  acknowledgment  of  all  and 
more  than  all  the  intellectual  aid  he  received  from 
others.  He  truly  and  properly  awarded  to  Ma- 
son and  Smith  all  the  credit  for  the  law  and  for 
the  legal  points  and  theories  set  forth  on  their 
side,  and  modestly  says  that  he  was  merely  the 
arranger  and  reciter  of  other  men’s  thoughts. 
But  how  much  that  arrangement  and  recitation 
meant ! There  were,  perhaps,  no  lawyers  better 
fitted  than  Mason  and  Smith  to  examine  a case 
and  prepare  an  argument  enriched  with  everything 


86 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


that  learning  and  sagacity  could  suggest.  But 
when  Mr.  Webster  burst  upon  the  court  and  the 
nation  with  this  great  appeal,  it  was  certain  that 
there  was  no  man  in  the  land  who  could  so  ar- 
range arguments  and  facts,  who  could  state  them 
so  powerfully  and  with  such  a grand  and  fitting 
eloquence. 

The  legal  part  of  the  argument  was  printed  in 
Farrar’s  report  and  also  in  Wheaton’s,  after  it  had 
been  carefully  revised  by  Mr.  Webster  with  the 
arguments  of  his  colleagues  before  him.  This 
legal  and  constitutional  discussion  shows  plainly 
enough  Mr.  Webster’s  easy  and  firm  grasp  of  facts 
and  principles,  and  his  power  of  strong,  effective, 
and  lucid  statement ; but  it  is  in  its  very  nature 
dry,  cold,  and  lawyer-like.  It  gives  no  conception 
of  the  glowing  vehemence  of  the  delivery,  or  of 
those  omitted  portions  of  the  speech  which  dealt 
with  matters  outside  the  domain  of  law,  and  which 
were  introduced  by  Mr.  Webster  with  such  telling 
and  important  results.  He  spoke  for  five  hours, 
but  in  the  printed  report  his  speech  occupies  only 
three  pages  more  than  that  of  Mr.  Mason  in  the 
court  below.  Both  were  slow  speakers,  and  thus 
there  is  a great  difference  in  time  to  be  accounted 
for,  even  after  making  every  allowance  for  the  per- 
oration which  we  have  from  another  source,  and 
for  the  wealth  of  legal  and  historical  illustration 
with  which  Mr.  Webster  amplified  his  presenta- 
tion of  the  question.  “ Something  was  left  out,” 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  87 

Mr.  Webster  says,  and  that  something  which  must 
have  occupied  in  its  delivery  nearly  an  hour  was 
the  most  conspicuous  example  of  the  general- 
ship by  which  Mr.  Webster  achieved  victory,  and 
which  was  wholly  apart  from  his  law.  This  art 
of  management  had  already  been  displayed  in  the 
treatment  of  the  cases  made  up  for  the  Circuit 
Courts,  and  in  the  elaborate  and  irrelevant  legal 
discussion  which  Mr.  Webster  introduced  before 
the  Supreme  Court.  But  this  management  now 
entered  on  a much  higher  stage,  where  it  was  des- 
tined to  win  victory,  and  exhibited  in  a high 
degree  tact  and  knowledge  of  men.  Mr.  Webster 
was  fully  aware  that  he  could  rely,  in  any  aspect 
of  the  case,  upon  the  sympathy  of  Marshall  and 
Washington.  He  was  equally  certain  of  the  un- 
yielding opposition  of  Duvall  and  Todd ; the 
other  three  judges,  Johnson,  Livingston,  and 
Story,  were  known  to  be  adverse  to  the  college, 
but  were  possible  converts.  The  first  point  was 
to  increase  the  sympathy  of  the  Chief  Justice  to  an 
eager  and  even  passionate  support.  Mr.  Webster 
knew  the  chord  to  strike,  and  he  touched  it  with 
a master  hand.  This  was  the  “ something  left 
out,”  of  which  we  know  the  general  drift,  and  we 
can  easily  imagine  the  effect.  In  the  midst  of  all 
the  legal  and  constitutional  arguments,  relevant 
and  irrelevant,  even  in  the  pathetic  appeal  which 
he  used  so  well  in  behalf  of  his  Alma  Mater,  Mr. 
Webster  boldly  and  yet  skilfully  introduced  the 


88 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


political  view  of  the  case.  So  delicately  did  he 
do  it  that  an  attentive  listener  did  not  realize 
that  he  was  straying  from  the  field  of  “ mere  rea- 
son ” into  that  of  political  passion.  Here  no  man 
could  equal  him  or  help  him,  for  here  his  eloquence 
had  full  scope,  and  on  this  he  relied  to  arouse 
Marshall,  whom  he  thoroughly  understood.  In 
occasional  sentences  he  pictured  his  beloved  col- 
lege under  the  wise  I’ule  of  Federalists  and  of  the 
Church.  He  depicted  the  party  assault  that  was 
made  upon  her.  He  showed  the  citadel  of  learn- 
ing threatened  with  unholy  invasion  and  falling 
helplessly  into  the  hands  of  Jacobins  and  free- 
thinkers. As  the  tide  of  his  resistless  and  solemn 
eloquence,  mingled  with  his  masterly  argument, 
flowed  on,  we  can  imagine  how  the  great  Chief 
Justice  roused  like  an  old  war-horse  at  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet.  The  words  of  the  speaker  car- 
ried him  back  to  the  early  years  of  the  century, 
when,  in  the  full  flush  of  manhood,  at  the  head  of 
his  court,  the  last  stronghold  of  Federalism,  the 
last  bulwark  of  sound  government,  he  had  faced 
the  power  of  the  triumphant  Democrats.  Once 
more  it  was  Marshall  against  Jefferson,  — the 
judge  against  the  President.  Then  he  had  pre- 
served the  ark  of  the  Constitution.  Then  he  had 
seen  the  angry  waves  of  popular  feeling  breaking 
vainly  at  his  feet.  Now,  in  his  old  age,  the  con- 
flict was  revived.  Jacobinism  was  raising  its  sac- 
rilegious hand  against  the  temples  of  learning, 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  89 

against  the  friends  of  order  and  good  government. 
The  joy  of  battle  must  have  glowed  once  more  in 
the  old  man’s  breast  as  he  grasped  anew  his  weap- 
ons aud  prepared  with  all  the  force  of  his  indom- 
itable will  to  raise  yet  another  constitutional  bar- 
rier across  the  path  of  his  ancient  enemies. 

We  cannot  but  feel  that  Mr.  Webster’s  lost 
passages,  embodying  this  political  appeal,  did  the 
work,  and  that  the  result  was  settled  when  the 
political  passions  of  the  Chief  Justice  were  fairly 
aroused.  Marshall  would  probably  have  brought 
about  the  decision  by  the  sole  force  of  his  imperi- 
ous will.  But  Mr.  Webster  did  a good  deal  of 
effective  work  after  the  arguments  were  all  fin- 
ished, and  no  account  of  the  case  would  be  com- 
plete without  a glance  at  the  famous  peroration 
with  which  he  concluded  his  speech  and  in  which 
he  boldly  flung  aside  all  vestige  of  legal  reasoning, 
and  spoke  directly  to  the  passions  and  emotions 
of  his  hearers. 

When  he  had  finished  his  argument  he  stood 
silent  for  some  moments,  until  every  eye  was  fixed 
upon  him,  then,  addressing  the  Chief  Justice,  he 
said : — 

“ This,  sir,  is  my  case.  It  is  the  case  not  merely  of 
that  humble  institution,  it  is  the  case  of  every  college 
in  our  land.  . . . 

“ Sir,  you  may  destroy  this  little  institution  ; it  is 
weak;  it  is  in  your  hands!  I know  it  is  one  of  the 
lesser  lights  in  the  literary  horizon  of  our  country. 


90 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


You  may  put  it  out.  But  if  you  do  so  you  must  carry 
through  your  work ! You  must  extinguish,  one  after 
another,  all  those  greater  lights  of  science  which  for 
more  than  a century  have  thrown  their  radiance  over 
our  land.  It  is,  sir,  as  I have  said,  a small  college. 
And  yet  there  are  those  who  love  it.” 

Here  his  feelings  mastered  him  ; his  eyes  filled 
with  tears,  his  lips  quivered,  his  voice  was  choked. 
In  broken  words  of  tenderness  he  spoke  of  his  at- 
tachment to  the  college,  and  his  tones  seemed 
filled  with  the  memories  of  home  and  boyhood  ; 
of  early  affections  and  youthful  privations  and 
struggles. 

“ The  court  room,”  says  Mr.  Goodrich,  to  whom  we 
owe  this  description,  “ during  these  two  or  three  min- 
utes presented  an  extraordinary  spectacle.  Chief  Jus- 
tice Marshall,  with  his  tall  and  gaunt  figure  bent  over 
as  if  to  catch  the  slightest  whisper,  the  deep  furrows 
of  his  cheek  expanded  with  emotion  and  his  eyes  suf- 
fused with  tears ; Mr.  Justice  Washington,  at  his  side, 
with  his  small  and  emaciated  frame,  and  countenance 
more  like  marble  than  I ever  saw  on  any  other  human 
being,  — leaning  forward  with  an  eager,  troubled  look  ; 
and  the  remainder  of  the  court  at  the  two  extremities, 
pressing,  as  it  were,  to  a single  point,  while  the  au- 
dience below  were  wrapping  themselves  round  in  closer 
folds  beneath  the  bench,  to  catch  each  look  and  every 
movement  of  the  speaker’s  face.  . . . 

“Mr.  Webster  had  now  recovered  his  composure, and, 
fixing  his  keen  eye  on  the  Chief  Justice,  said  in  that 
deep  tone  with  which  he  sometimes  thrilled  the  heart 
of  an  audience  : — 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


91 


“ ‘ Sir,  I know  not  how  others  may  feel  ’ (glancing 
at  the  opponents  of  the  college  before  him),  ‘ but  for 
myself,  when  I see  my  Alma  Mater  surrounded,  like  Cae- 
sar in  the  senate-house,  by  those  who  are  reiterating 
stab  after  stab,  I would  not,  for  this  right  hand,  have 
her  turn  to  me,  and  say,  Et  tu  quoque,  mi  fill!  And  thou 
too,  my  son!’  ” 

This  outbreak  of  feeling  was  perfectly  genuine. 
Apart  from  his  personal  relations  to  the  college, 
he  had  the  true  oratorical  temperament,  and  no 
man  can  be  an  orator  in  the  highest  sense  unless 
he  feels  intensely,  for  the  moment  at  least,  the 
truth  and  force  of  every  word  he  utters.  To  move 
others  deeply  he  must  be  deeply  moved  himself. 
Yet  at  the  same  time  Mr.  Webster’s  peroration, 
and,  indeed,  his  whole  speech,  was  a model  of 
consummate  art.  Great  lawyer  as  he  undoubtedly 
was,  he  felt  on  this  occasion  that  he  could  not  rely 
on  legal  argument  and  pure  reason  alone.  With- 
out appearing  to  go  beyond  the  line  of  propriety, 
without  indulging  in  a declamation  unsuited  to 
the  place,  he  had  to  step  outside  of  legal  points 
and  in  a freer  air,  where  he  could  use  his  keenest 
and  strongest  weapons,  appeal  to  the  court  not  as 
lawyers  but  as  men  subject  to  passion,  emotion, 
and  prejudice.  This  he  did  boldly,  delicately, 
successfully,  and  thus  he  won  his  case. 

The  replies  of  the  opposing  counsel  were  poor 
enough  after  such  a speech.  Holmes’s  declama- 
tion sounded  rather  cheap,  and  Mr.  Wirt,  thrown 


92 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


off  his  balance  by  Mr.  Webster’s  exposure  of  bis 
ignorance,  did  but  slight  justice  to  himself  or  bis 
cause.  March  12tli  the  arguments  were  closed,  and 
the  next  day,  after  a conference,  the  Chief  Justice 
announced  that  the  court  could  agree  on  nothing 
and  that  the  cause  must  be  continued  for  a year, 
until  the  next  term.  The  fact  probably  was  that 
Marshall  found  the  judges  five  to  two  against  the 
college,  and  that  the  task  of  bringing  them  into 
line  was  not  a light  one. 

In  this  undertaking,  however,  he  was  powerfully 
aided  by  the  counsel  and  all  the  friends  of  the  col- 
lege. The  old  board  of  trustees  had  already  paid 
much  attention  to  public  opinion.  The  press  was 
largely  Federalist,  and,  under  the  pressure  of  what 
was  made  a party  question,  they  had  espoused 
warmly  the  cause  of  the  college.  Letters  and 
essays  had  appeared,  and  pamphlets  had  been 
circulated,  together  with  the  arguments  of  the 
counsel  at  Exeter.  This  work  was  pushed  with 
increased  eagerness  after  the  argument  at  Wash- 
ington, and  the  object  now  was  to  create  about 
the  three  doubtful  judges  an  atmosphere  of  public 
opinion  which  should  imperceptibly  bring  them 
over  to  the  college.  Johnson,  Livingston,  and 
Story  were  all  men  who  would  have  started  at 
the  barest  suspicion  of  outside  influence  even 
in  the  most  legitimate  form  of  argument,  which 
was  all  that  was  ever  thought  of  or  attempted. 
This  made  the  task  of  the  trustees  very  delicate 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  93 

and  difficult  in  developing  a public  sentiment 
which  should  sway  the  judges  without  their  being 
aware  of  it.  The  printed  arguments  of  Mason, 
Smith,  and  Webster  were  carefully  sent  to  certain 
of  the  judges,  but  not  to  all.  All  documents  of 
a similar  character  found  their  way  to  the  same 
quarters.  The  leading  Federalists  were  aroused 
everywhere,  so  that  the  judges  might  be  made  to 
feel  their  opinion.  With  Story,  as  a New  Eng- 
land man,  a Democrat  by  circumstances,  a Fed- 
eralist by  nature,  there  was  but  little  difficulty. 
A thorough  review  of  the  case,  joined  with  Mr. 
Webster’s  argument,  caused  him  soon  to  change 
his  first  impression.  To  reach  Livingston  and 
Johnson  was  not  so  easy,  for  they  were  out  of 
New  England,  and  it  was  necessary  to  go  a long 
way  round  to  get  at  them.  The  great  legal  up- 
holder of  Federalism  in  New  York  was  Chancellor 
Kent.  His  first  impression,  like  that  of  Story, 
was  decidedly  against  the  college,  but  after  much 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  trustees  and  their  able 
allies,  Kent  was  converted,  partly  through  his 
reason,  partly  through  his  Federalism,  and  then 
his  powers  of  persuasion  and  his  great  influence 
on  opinion  came  to  bear  very  directly  on  Living- 
ston, more  remotely  on  Johnson.  The  whole  busi- 
ness was  managed  like  a quiet,  decorous  political 
campaign.  The  press  and  the  party  were  every- 
where actively  interested.  At  first,  and  in  the 
early  summer  of  1818,  before  Kent  was  converted, 


94 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


matters  looked  badly  for  the  trustees.  Mr.  Web- 
ster knew  the  complexion  of  the  court,  and  hoped 
little  from  the  point  raised  in  Trustees  vs.  Wood- 
ward. Still,  no  one  despaired,  and  'the  work  was 
kept  up  until,  in  September,  President  Brown 
wrote  to  Mr.  Webster  in  reference  to  the  argu- 
ment : — 

“ It  has  already  been,  or  shortly  will  be,  read  by  all 
the  commanding  men  of  New  England  and  New  York ; 
and  so  far  as  it  has  gone  it  has  united  them  all,  without 
a single  exception  within  my  knowledge,  in  one  broad 
and  impenetrable  phalanx  for  our  defence  and  support. 
New  England  and  New  York  are  gained.  Will  not  this 
be  sufficient  for  our  present  purposes  ? If  not,  I should 
recommend  reprinting.  And  on  this  point  you  are  the 
best  judge.  I prevailingly  think,  however,  that  the  cur- 
rent of  opinion  from  this  part  of  the  country  is  setting 
so  strongly  towards  the  South  that  we  may  safely  trust 
to  its  force  alone  to  accomplish  whatever  is  necessary.” 

The  worthy  clergyman  writes  of  public  opinion 
as  if  the  object  was  to  elect  a President.  All 
this  effort,  however,  was  well  applied,  as  was  found 
when  the  court  came  together  at  the  next  term. 
In  the  interval  the  State  had  become  sensible  of 
the  defects  of  their  counsel,  and  had  retained  Mr. 
Pinkney,  who  stood  at  that  time  at  the  head  of 
the  bar  of  the  United  States.  He  had  all  the  qual- 
ifications of  a great  lawyer,  except  perhaps  that  of 
robustness.  He  was  keen,  strong,  and  learned ; 
diligent  in  preparation,  he  was  ready  and  fluent  in 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


95 


action,  a good  debater,  and  master  of  a High  order 
of  eloquence.  He  was  a most  formidable  adver- 
sary, and  one  whom  Mr.  Webster,  then  just  at  the 
outset  of  his  career,  had  probably  no  desire  to  meet 
in  such  a doubtful  case  as  this.1  Even  here,  how- 
ever, misfortune  seemed  to  pursue  the  State,  for 
Mr.  Pinkney  was  on  bad  terms  with  Mr.  Wirt, 
and  acted  alone.  He  did  all  that  was  possible ; 
prepared  himself  elaborately  in  the  law  and  his- 
tory of  the  case,  and  then  went  into  court  ready 
to  make  the  wisest  possible  move  by  asking  for  a 
re-argument.  Marshall,  however,  was  also  quite 
prepared.  Turning  his  “ blind  ear,”  as  some  one 
said,  to  Pinkney,  he  announced,  as  soon  as  he  took 
his  seat,  that  the  judges  had  come  to  a conclusion 
during  the  vacation.  He  then  read  one  of  his 

1 Mr.  Peter  Harvey,  in  his  Reminiscences  (p.  122),  has  an  anec- 
dote in  regard  to  Webster  and  Pinkney,  which  places  the  former 
in  the  light  of  a common  and  odious  bully,  an  attitude  as  alien  to 
Mr.  Webster’s  character  as  can  well  be  conceived.  The  story  is 
undoubtedly  either  wholly  fictitious  or  so  grossly  exaggerated  as 
to  be  practically  false.  On  the  page  preceding  the  account  of 
this  incident,  Mr.  Harvey  makes  Webster  say  that  he  never  re- 
ceived a challenge  from  Randolph,  whereas  in  Webster’s  own  let- 
ter, published  by  Mr.  Curtis,  there  is  express  reference  to  a note 
of  challenge  received  from  Randolph.  This  is  a fair  example  of 
these  Reminiscences.  A more  untrustworthy  book  it  would  be 
impossible  to  imagine.  There  is  not  a statement  in  it  which  can 
be  safely  accepted,  unless  supported  by  other  evidence.  It  puts 
its  subject  throughout  in  the  most  unpleasant  light,  and  nothing 
has  ever  been  written  about  Webster  so  well  calculated  to  injure 
and  belittle  him  as  these  feeble  and  distorted  recollections  of  his 
loving  and  devoted  Boswell.  It  is  the  reflection  of  a great  man 
upon  the  mirror  of  a very  small  mind  and  weak  memory. 


96 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


great  opinions,  in  which  he  held  that  the  college 
charter  was  a contract  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Constitution,  and  that  the  acts  of  the  New  Hamp- 
shire Legislature  impaired  this  contract,  and  were 
therefore  void.  To  this  decision  four  judges  as- 
sented in  silence,  although  Story  and  Washington 
subsequently  wrote  out  opinions.  Judge  Todd 
was  absent,  through  illness,  and  Judge  Duvall  dis- 
sented. The  immediate  effect  of  the  decision  was 
to  leave  the  college  in  the  hands  of  the  victorious 
Federalists.  In  the  precedent  which  it  estab- 
lished, however,  it  had  much  deeper  and  more 
far-reaching  results.  It  brought  within  the  scope 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  every 
charter  granted  by  a State,  limited  the  action  of 
the  States  in  a most  important  attribute  of  sover- 
eignty, and  extended  the  jurisdiction  of  the  high- 
est federal  court  more  than  any  other  judgment 
ever  rendered  by  them.  From  the  day  when  it 
was  announced  to  the  present  time,  the  doctrine  of 
Marshall  in  the  Dartmouth  College  case  has  con- 
tinued to  exert  an  enormous  influence,  and  has 
been  constantly  sustained  and  attacked  in  litiga- 
tion of  the  greatest  importance. 

The  defendant  Woodward  having  died,  Mr. 
Webster  moved  that  the  judgment  be  entered 
nunc  pro  tunc.  Pinkney  and  Wirt  objected  on 
the  ground  that  the  other  causes  on  the  docket 
contained  additional  facts,  and  that  no  final  judg- 
ment should  be  entered  until  these  causes  had 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


97 


been  heard.  The  court,  however,  granted  Mr. 
Webster’s  motion.  Mr.  Pinkney  then  tried  to 
avail  himself  of  the  stipulation  in  regard  to  the 
special  verdict,  that  any  new  and  material  facts 
might  be  added  or  any  facts  expunged.  Mr.  Web- 
ster peremptorily  declined  to  permit  any  change, 
obtained  judgment  against  Woodward,  and  obliged 
Mr.  Pinkney  to  consent  that  the  other  causes 
should  be  remanded,  without  instructions,  to  the 
Circuit  Court,  where  they  were  heard  by  Judge 
Story,  who  rendered  a decree  nisi  for  the  college. 
This  closed  the  case,  and  such  were  the  last  dis- 
plays of  Mr.  Webster’s  dexterous  and  vigorous 
management  of  the  famous  “ college  causes.” 

The  popular  opinion  of  this  case  seems  to  be 
that  Mr.  Webster,  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  Mason  and 
Judge  Smith,  developed  a great  constitutional  ar- 
gument, which  he  forced  upon  the  acceptance  of 
the  court  by  the  power  of  his  close  and  logical 
reasoning,  and  thus  established  an  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  of  vast  moment.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  suggestion  of  the  constitutional  point, 
not  a very  remarkable  idea  in  itself,  originated,  as 
has  been  said,  with  a layman,  was  regarded  by 
Mr.  Webster  as  a forlorn  hope,  and  was  very 
briefly  discussed  by  him  before  the  Supreme  Court. 
He  knew,  of  course,  that  if  the  case  were  to  be 
decided  against  Woodward,  it  could  only  be  on  the 
constitutional  point,  but  he  evidently  thought  that 
the  court  would  not  take  the  view  of  it  which  was 


98 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


favorable  to  the  college.  The  Dartmouth  College 
case  was  unquestionably  one  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
great  achievements  at  the  bar,  but  it  has  been 
rightly  praised  on  mistaken  grounds.  Mr.  Web- 
ster made  a very  fine  presentation  of  the  argu- 
ments mainly  prepared  by  Mason  and  Smith.  He 
transcended  the  usual  legal  limits  with  a burst  of 
eloquent  appeal  which  stands  high  among  the  fa- 
mous passages  of  his  oratory.  In  what  may  be 
called  the  strategy  of  the  case  he  showed  the  best 
generalship  and  the  most  skilful  management.  He 
also  proved  himself  to  be  possessed  of  great  tact 
and  to  be  versed  in  the  knowledge  of  men,  qual- 
ities not  usually  attributed  to  him  because  their 
exercise  involved  an  amount  of  care  and  pains- 
taking foreign  to  his  indolent  and  royal  temper- 
ament, which  almost  always  relied  on  weight  and 
force  for  victory. 

Mr.  Webster  no  doubt  improved  in  details,  and 
made  better  arguments  at  the  bar  than  he  did 
upon  this  occasion,  but  the  Dartmouth  College 
case,  on  the  whole,  shows  his  legal  talents  so  nearly 
at  their  best,  and  in  such  unusual  variety,  that  it 
is  a fit  point  at  which  to  pause  in  order  to  con- 
sider some  of  his  other  great  legal  arguments  and 
his  position  and  abilities  as  a lawyer.  For  this 
purpose  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  confine  ourselves 
to  the  cases  mentioned  by  Mr.  Curtis,  and  to  the 
legal  arguments  preserved  in  the  collection  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  speeches. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE. 


99 


Five  years  after  the  Dartmouth  College  decision, 
Mr.  Webster  made  his  famous  argument  in  the 
case  of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden.  The  case  was  called 
suddenly,  and  Mr.  Webster  prepared  his  argument 
in  a single  night  of  intense  labor.  The  facts  were 
all  before  him,  but  he  showed  a readiness  in  ar- 
rangement only  equalled  by  its  force.  The  ques- 
tion was  whether  the  State  of  New  York  had  a 
right  under  the  Constitution  to  grant  a monopoly 
of  steam  navigation  in  its  waters  to  Fulton  and 
Livingston.  Mr.  Webster  contended  that  the  acts 
making  such  a grant  were  unconstitutional,  be- 
cause the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  com- 
merce was,  within  certain  limitations,  exclusive. 
He  won  his  cause,  and  the  decision,  from  its  im- 
portance, probably  enhanced  the  contemporary 
estimate  of  his  effort.  The  argument  was  badly 
reported,  but  it  shows  all  its  author’s  strongest 
qualities  of  close  reasoning  and  effective  state- 
ment. The  point  in  issue  was  neither  difficult 
nor  obscure,  and  afforded  no  opportunity  for  a 
display  of  learning.  It  was  purely  a matter  of 
constitutional  interpretation,  and  could  be  dis- 
cussed chiefly  in  a historical  manner  and  from  the 
standpoint  of  public  interests.  This  was  partic- 
ularly fitted  to  Mr.  Webster's  cast  of  mind,  and  he 
did  his  subject  full  justice.  It  was  pure  argument 
on  general  principles.  Mr.  Webster  does  not 
reach  that  point  of  intense  clearness  and  conden- 
sation which  characterized  Marshall  and  Hamil- 


100 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ton,  in  whose  writings  we  are  fascinated  by  the 
beauty  of  the  intellectual  display,  and  are  held 
fast  by  each  succeeding  line,  which  always  comes 
charged  with  fresh  meaning.  '.Nevertheless,  Mr. 
Webster  touches  a very  high  point  in  this  most 
difficult  form  of  argument,  and  the  impressiveness 
of  his  manner  and  voice  carried  all  that  he  said  to 
its  mark  with  a direct  force  in  which  he  stood  un- 
rivalled. 

In  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  heard  in  1827,  Mr.  Web- 
ster argued  that  the  clause  prohibiting  state  laws 
impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts  covered  fu- 
ture as  well  as  past  contracts.  He  defended  his 
position  with  astonishing  ability,  but  the  court 
very  correctly  decided  against  him.  The  same 
qualities  which  appear  in  these  cases  are  shown 
in  the  others  of  a like  nature,  which  were  con- 
spicuous among  the  multitude  with  which  he  was 
intrusted.  We  find  them  also  in  cases  involving 
purely  legal  questions,  such  as  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  v.  Primrose,  and  The  Providence 
Railroad  Co.  v.  The  City  of  Boston,  accompa- 
nied always  with  that  ready  command  of  learn- 
ing which  an  extraordinary  memory  made  easy. 
There  seemed  to  be  no  diminution  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s great  powers  in  this  field  as  he  advanced  in 
years.  In  the  Rhode  Island  case  and  in  the  Pas- 
senger Tax  cases,  argued  when  he  was  sixty-six 
years  old,  he  rose  to  the  same  high  plane  of  clear, 
impressive,  effective  reasoning  as  when  he  de- 
fended his  Alma  Mater. 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  101 

Two  causes,  however,  demand  more  than  a pass- 
ing mention,  — the  Girard  will  case  and  the  Rhode 
Island  case.  The  former  involved  no  constitutional 
points.  The  suit  was  brought  to  break  the  will  of 
Stephen  Girard,  and  the  question  was  whether  the 
bequest  to  found  a college  could  be  construed  to 
be  a charitable  devise.  On  this  question  Mr.  Web- 
ster had  a weak  case  in  point  of  law,  but  he  readily- 
detected  a method  by  which  he  could  go  boldly 
outside  the  law,  as  he  had  done  to  a certain  de- 
gree in  the  Dartmouth  College  case,  and  substi- 
tute for  argument  an  eloquent  and  impassioned 
appeal  to  emotion  and  prejudice.  Girard  was  a 
free-thinker,  and  he  provided  in  his  will  that  no 
priest  or  minister  of  any  denomination  should  be 
admitted  to  his  college.  Assuming  that  this  ex- 
cluded all  religious  teaching,  Mr.  Webster  then 
laid  down  the  proposition  that  no  bequest  or 
gift  could  be  charitable  which  excluded  Christian 
teaching.  In  other  words,  he  contended  that  there 
was  no  charity  except  Christian  charity,  which, 
the  poet  assures  us,  is  so  rare.  At  this  day  such 
a theory  would  hardly  be  gravely  propounded  by 
any  one.  But  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  ground  that 
Girard's  bequest  was  derogatory  to  Christianity, 
pi’onounced  a very  fine  discourse  defending  and 
eulogizing,  with  much  eloquence,  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. The  speech  produced  a great  effect.  One 
is  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  the  cause  of  the 
court’s  evading  the  question  raised  by  Mr.  Web- 


102 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ster,  and  sustaining  the  will,  a result  they  were 
bound  to  reach  in  any  event,  on  other  grounds. 
The  speech  certainly  produced  a great  sensation, 
and  was  much  admired,  especially  by  the  clergy, 
who  caused  it  to  be  printed  and  widely  distrib- 
uted. It  did  not  impress  lawyers  quite  so  favor- 
ably, and  we  find  Judge  Story  writing  to  Chan- 
cellor Kent  that  “ Webster  did  his  best  for  the 
other  side,  but  it  seems  to  me  altogether  an  ad- 
dress to  the  prejudices  of  the  clergy.”  The  sub- 
ject, in  certain  ways,  had  a deep  attraction  for 
Mr.  Webster.  His  imagination  was  excited  by 
the  splendid  history  of  the  Church,  and  his  conser- 
vatism was  deeply  stirred  by  a system  which, 
whether  in  the  guise  of  the  Romish  hierarchy,  as 
the  Church  of  England,  or  in  the  form  of  power- 
ful dissenting  sects,  was,  as  a whole,  imposing 
by  its  age,  its  influence,  and  its  moral  grandeur. 
Moreover,  it  was  one  of  the  great  established  bul- 
warks of  well-ordered  and  civilized  society.  All 
this  appealed  strongly  to  Mr.  Webster,  and  he 
made  the  most  of  his  opportunity  and  of  his 
shrewdly-chosen  ground.  Yet  the  speech  on  the 
Girard  will  is  not  one  of  his  best  efforts.  It  has 
not  the  subdued  but  intense  fire  which  glowed  so 
splendidly  in  his  great  speeches  in  the  Senate.  It 
lacked  the  stately  pathos  which  came  always  when 
Mr.  Webster  was  deeply  moved.  It  was  delivered 
in  1844,  and  was  slightly  tinged  with  the  pom- 
pousness which  manifested  itself  in  his  late  years, 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  103 

and  especially  on  religious  topics.  No  man  lias  a 
right  to  question  the  religious  sincerity  of  another, 
unless  upon  evidence  so  full  and  clear  that,  in 
such  cases,  it  is  rarely  to  be  found.  There  is  cer- 
tainly no  cause  for  doubt  in  Mr.  Webster’s  case. 
He  was  both  sincere  and  honest  in  religion,  and 
had  a real  and  submissive  faith.  But  he  accepted 
his  religion  as  one  of  the  great  facts  and  proprie- 
ties of  life.  He  did  not  reach  his  religious  con- 
victions after  much  burning  questioning  and  many 
bitter  experiences.  In  this  he  did  not  differ  from 
most  men  of  this  age,  and  it  only  amounts  to  say- 
ing that  Mr.  Webster  did  not  have  a deeply  re- 
ligious temperament.  He  did  not  have  the  ardent 
proselyting  spirit  which  is  the  surest  indication  of 
a profoundly  religious  nature  ; the  spirit  of  the 
Saracen  Emir  crying,  “ Forward  ! Paradise  is 
under  the  shadow  of  our  swords.”  When,  there- 
fore, he  turned  his  noble  powers  to  a defence  of 
religion,  he  did  not  speak  with  that  impassioned 
fervor  which,  coming  from  the  depths  of  a man’s 
heart,  savors  of  inspiration  and  seems  essential 
to  the  highest  religious  eloquence.  He  believed 
thoroughly  every  word  he  uttered,  but  he  did  not 
feel  it,  and  in  things  spiritual  the  heart  must  be 
enlisted  as  well  as  the  head.  It  was  wittily  said 
of  a well-known  anti-slavery  leader,  that  had  he 
lived  in  the  Middle  Ages  he  would  have  gone  to 
the  stake  for  a principle,  under  a misapprehension 
as  to  the  facts.  Mr.  Webster  not  only  could  never 


104 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


have  misapprehended  facts,  bat,  if  lie  had  flour- 
ished in  the  Middle  Ages  he  would  have  been 
a stanch  and  honest  supporter  of  the  strongest 
government  and  of  the  dominant  church.  Per- 
haps this  defines  his  religious  character  as  well  as 
anything,  and  explains  why  the  argument  in  the 
Girard  will  case,  fine  as  it  was,  did  not  reach  the 
elevation  and  force  which  he  so  often  displayed 
on  other  themes. 

The  Rhode  Island  case  grew  out  of  the  troubles 
known  at  that  period  as  Dorr’s  rebellion.  It  in- 
volved a discussion  not  only  of  the  constitutional 
provisions  for  suppressing  insurrections  and  secur- 
ing to  every  State  a republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, but  also  of  the  general  history  and  theory 
of  the  American  governments,  both  state  and  na- 
tional. There  was  thus  offered  to  Mr.  Webster 
that  full  scope  and  large  field  in  which  he  de- 
lighted, and  which  were  always  peculiarly  favor- 
able to  his  talents.  His  argument  was  purely 
constitutional,  and  although  not  so  closely  rea- 
soned, perhaps,  as  some  of  his  earlier  efforts,  is, 
on  the  whole,  as  fine  a specimen  as  we  have  of  his 
intellectual  power  as  a constitutional  lawyer  at 
the  bar  of  the  highest  national  tribunal.  Mr. 
Webster  did  not  often  transcend  the  pi'oper  limits 
of  purely  legal  discussion  in  the  courts,  and  yet 
even  when  the  question  was  wholly  legal,  the 
court-room  would  be  crowded  by  ladies  as  well  as 
gentlemen,  to  hear  him  speak.  It  was  so  at  the 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  105 

hearing  of  the  Girard  suit ; and  during  the  strictly 
legal  arguments  in  the  Charles  River  Bridge  case, 
the  court-room,  Judge  Story  says,  was  filled  with 
a brilliant  audience,  including  many  ladies,  and 
he  adds  that  “Webster’s  closing  reply  was  in  his 
best  manner,  but  with  a little  too  much  jiertS 
here  and  there.”  The  ability  to  attract  such  au- 
diences gives  an  idea  of  the  impressiveness  of  his 
manner  and  of  the  beauty  of  his  voice  and  delivery 
better  than  anything  else,  for  these  qualities  alone 
could  have  drawn  the  general  public  and  held 
their  attention  to  the  cold  and  dry  discussion  of 
laws  and  constitutions. 

't  There  is  a little  anecdote  told  by  Mr.  Curtis  in 
connection  with  this  Rhode  Island  case,  which  il- 
lustrates very  well  two  striking  qualities  in  Mr. 
Webster  as  a lawyer.  The  counsel  in  the  court 
below  had  been  assisted  by  a clever  young  lawyer 
named  Bosworth,  who  had  elaborated  a point  which 
he  thought  very  important,  but  which  his  seniors 
rejected.  Mr.  Bosworth  was  sent  to  Washington 
to  instruct  Mr.  Webster  as  to  the  cause,  and,  after 
he  had  gone  through  the  case,  Mr.  Webster  asked 
if  that  was  all.  Mr.  Bosworth  modestly  replied 
that  there  was  another  view  of  his  own  which  his 
seniors  had  rejected,  and  then  stated  it  briefly. 
When  he  concluded,  Mr.  Webster  started  up  and 
exclaimed,  “ Mr.  Bosworth,  by  the  blood  of  all  the 
Bosworths  who  fell  on  Bosworth  field,  that  is  the 
point  of  the  case.  Let  it  be  included  in  the  brief 


106 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


by  all  means.”  This  is  highly  characteristic  of 
one  of  Mr.  Webster’s  strongest  attributes.  He 
always  saw  with  an  unerring  glance  “ the  point  ” 
of  a case  or  a debate.  A great  surgeon  will  de- 
tect the  precise  spot  where  the  knife  should  enter 
when  disease  hides  it  from  other  eyes,  and  often 
with  apparent  carelessness  will  make  the  neces- 
sary incision  at  the  exact  place  when  a deflection 
of  a hair’s  breadth  or  a tremor  of  the  hand  would 
bring  death  to  the  patient.  Mr.  Webster  had  the 
same  intellectual  dexterity,  the  mingled  result  of 
nature  and  art.  As  the  tiger  is  said  to  have  a 
sure  instinct  for  the  throat  of  his  victim,  so  Mr. 
Webster  always  seized  on  the  vital  point  of  a 
question.  Other  men  would  debate  and  argue  for 
days,  perhaps,  and  then  Mr.  Webster  would  take 
up  the  matter,  and  grasp  at  once  the  central  and 
essential  element  which  had  been  there  all  along, 
pushed  hither  and  thither,  but  which  had  escaped 
all  eyes  but  his  own.  He  had  preeminently 
“ The  calm  eye  that  seeks 
’Midst  all  the  huddling  silver  little  worth 
The  one  thin  piece  that  comes,  pure  gold.” 

The  anecdote  further  illustrates  the  use  which 
Mr.  Webster  made  of  the  ideas  of  other  people. 
He  did  not  say  to  Mr.  Bosworth,  here  is  the  true 
point  of  the  case,  but  he  saw  that  something  was 
wanting,  and  asked  the  young  lawyer  what  it  was. 
The  moment  the  proposition  was  stated  he  recog- 
nized its  value  and  importance  at  a glance.  He 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  107 

might  and  probably  would  have  discovered  it  for 
himself,  but  his  instinct  was  to  get  it  from  some 
one  else. 

It  is  one  of  the  familiar  attributes  of  great  in- 
tellectual power  to  be  able  to  select  subordinates 
wisely ; to  use  other  people  and  other  people’s 
labor  and  thought  to  the  best  advantage,  and  to 
have  as  much  as  possible  done  for  one  by  others. 
This  power  of  assimilation  Mr.  Webster  had  to  a 
marked  degree.  There  is  no  depreciation  in  say- 
ing that  he  took  much  from  others,  for  it  is  a ca- 
pacity  characteristic  of  the  strongest  minds,  and  so 
long  as  the  debt  is  acknowledged,  such  a faculty 
is  a subject  for  praise,  not  criticism.  But  when 
the  recipient  becomes  unwilling  to  admit  the  ob- 
ligation which  is  no  detraction  to  himself,  and 
without  which  the  giver  is  poor  indeed,  the  case  is 
altered.  In  his  earliest  days  Mr.  Webster  used 
to  draw  on  one  Parker  Noyes,  a mousing,  learned 
New  Hampshire  lawyer,  and  freely  acknowledged 
the  debt.  In  the  Dartmouth  College  case,  as  has 
been  seen,  he  over  and  over  again  gave  simply 
and  generously  all  the  credit  for  the  learning  and 
the  points  of  the  brief  to  Mason  and  Smith,  and 
yet  the  glory  of  the  case  has  rested  with  Mr. 
Webster  and  always  will.  He  gained  by  his  frank 
honesty  and  did  not  lose  a whit.  But  in  his  lat- 
ter days,  when  his  sense  of  justice  had  grown 
somewhat  blunted  and  his  nature  was  perverted 
by  the  unmeasured  adulation  of  the  little  immedi- 


108 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ate  circle  which  then  hung  about  him,  he  ceased 
to  admit  his  obligations  as  in  his  earlier  and  bet- 
ter years.  From  no  one  did  Mr.  Webster  receive 
so  much  hearty  and  generous  advice  and  assistance 
as  from  Judge  Story,  whose  calm  judgment  and 
wealth  of  learning  were  always  at  his  disposal. 
They  were  given  not  only  in  questions  of  law,  but 
in  regal’d  to  the  Crimes  Act,  the  Judiciary  Act, 
and  the  Ashburton  treaty.  After  Judge  Story’s 
death,  Mr.  Webster  not  only  declined  to  allow  the 
publication  by  the  judge’s  son  and  biographer  of 
Story’s  letters  to  himself,  but  he  refused  to  per- 
mit even  the  publication  of  extracts  from  his  own 
letters,  intended  merely  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  services  rendered  to  him  by  Story.  A cordial 
assent  would  have  enhanced  the  reputation  of 
both.  The  refusal  is  a blot  on  the  intellectual 
greatness  of  the  one  and  a source  of  bitterness  to 
the  descendants  and  admirers  of  the  other.  It 
is  to  be  regretted  that  the  extraordinary  ability 
which  Mr.  Webster  always  showed  in  grasping 
and  assimilating  masses  of  theories  and  facts,  and 
in  drawing  from  them  what  was  best,  should  ever 
have  been  sullied  by  a want  of  gratitude  which, 
properly  and  freely  rendered,  would  have  made 
the  lustre  of  his  own  fame  shine  still  more  brightly. 

A close  study  of  Mr.  Webster’s  legal  career,  in 
the  light  of  contempoi’ary  reputation  and  of  the 
best  examples  of  his  work,  leads  to  certain  quite 
obvious  conclusions.  He  had  not  a strongly  orig- 


THE  DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE  CASE.  109 

inal  or  creative  legal  mind.  This  was  chiefly  due 
to  nature,  but  in  some  measure  to  a dislike  to  the 
slow  processes  of  investigation  and  inquiry  which 
were  always  distasteful  to  him,  although  he  was 
entirely  capable  of  intense  and  protracted  exertion. 
He  cannot,  therefore,  be  ranked  with  the  illustri- 
ous few,  among  whom  we  count  Mansfield  and 
Marshall  as  the  most  brilliant  examples,  who  not 
only  declared  what  the  law  was,  but  who  made  it. 
Mr.  Webster’s  powers  were  not  of  this  class,  but, 
except  in  these  highest  and  rarest  qualities,  he 
stands  in  the  front  rank  of  the  lawyers  of  his  coun- 
try and  his  age.  Without  extraordinary  profundity 
of  thought  or  depth  of  learning,  he  had  a wide, 
sure,  and  ready  knowledge  both  of  principles  and 
cases.  Add  to  this  quick  apprehension,  unerring 
sagacity  for  vital  and  essential  points,  a perfect 
sense  of  proportion,  an  almost  unequalled  power 
of  statement,  backed  by  reasoning  at  once  close 
and  lucid,  and  we  may  fairly  say  that  Mr.  Web- 
ster, who  possessed  all  these  qualities,  need  fear 
comparison  with  but  very  few  among  the  great 
lawyers  of  that  period  either  at  home  or  abroad. 


CHAPTER  IY. 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  CONVENTION  AND  THE 
PLYMOUTH  ORATION. 

The  conduct  of  the  Dartmouth  College  case, 
and  its  result,  at  once  raised  Mr.  Webster  to  a po- 
sition at  the  bar  second  only  to  that  held  by  Mr. 
Pinkney.  He  was  now  constantly  occupied  by 
most  important  and  lucrative  engagements,  but  in 
1820  he  was  called  upon  to  take  a leading  part  in 
a great  public  work  which  demanded  the  exertion 
of  all  his  talents  as  statesman,  lawyer,  and  debater. 
The  lapse  of  time  and  the  setting  off  of  the  Maine 
district  as  a State  had  made  a convention  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  revise  the  Constitution  of  Massa- 
chusetts. This  involved  the  direct  resort  to  the 
people,  the  source  of  all  power,  which  is  only  re- 
quired to  effect  a change  in  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  State.  On  these  rare  occasions  it  has  been 
the  honored  custom  in  Massachusetts  to  lay  aside 
all  the  qualifications  attaching  to  ordinary  legisla- 
tures and  to  choose  the  best  men,  without  regard 
to  party,  public  office,  or  domicile,  for  the  per- 
formance of  this  important  work.  No  better  or 
abler  body  could  have  been  assembled  for  this 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  CONVENTION.  Ill 

purpose  than  that  which  met  in  convention  at 
Boston  in  November,  1820.  Among  these  dis- 
tinguished men  were  John  Adams,  then  in  his 
eighty-fifth  year,  and  one  of  the  framers  of  the 
original  Constitution  of  1780,  Chief  Justice  Par- 
ker, of  the  Supreme  Bench,  the  Fedei’al  judges, 
and  many  of  the  leaders  at  the  bar  and  in  busi- 
ness. The  two  most  conspicuous  men  in  the  con- 
vention, however,  were  Joseph  Story  and  Daniel 
Webster,  who  bore  the  burden  in  every  discus- 
sion ; and  there  were  three  subjects,  upon  which 
Mr.  Webster  spoke  at  length,  that  deserve  more 
than  a passing  allusion. 

Questions  of  party  have,  as  a rule,  found  but 
little  place  in  the  constitutional  assemblies  of  Mas- 
sachusetts. This  was  peculiarly  the  case  in  1820, 
when  the  old  political  divisions  were  dying  out, 
and  new  ones  had  not  yet  been  formed.  At  the 
same  time  widely  opposite  views  found  expression 
in  the  convention.  The  movement  toward  thor- 
ough and  complete  democracy  was  gathering  head- 
way, and  directing  its  force  against  many  of  the 
old  colonial  traditions  and  habits  of  government 
embodied  in  the  existing  Constitution.  That  por- 
tion of  the  delegates  which  favored  certain  radical 
changes  was  confronted  and  stoutly  opposed  by 
those  who,  on  the  whole,  inclined  to  make  as  few 
alterations  as  possible,  and  desired  to  keep  things 
about  as  they  were.  Mr.  Webster,  as  was  natural, 
was  the  leader  of  the  conservative  party,  and  his 


112 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


course  in  this  convention  is  an  excellent  illustra' 
tion  of  this  marked  trait  in  his  disposition  and 
character. 

One  of  the  important  questions  concerned  the 
abolition  of  the  profession  of  Christian  faith  as  a 
qualification  for  holding  office.  On  this  point  the 
line  of  argument  pursued  by  Mr.  Webster  is  ex- 
tremely characteristic.  Although  an  unvarying 
conservative  throughout  his  life,  he  was  incapable 
of  bigotry,  or  of  narrow  and  illiberal  views.  At 
the  same  time  the  process  by  which  he  reached 
his  opinion  in  favor  of  removing  the  religious  test 
shows  more  clearly  than  even  ultra-conservatism 
could,  how  free  he  was  from  any  touch  of  the  re- 
forming or  innovating  spirit.  He  did  not  urge 
that,  on  general  principles,  religious  tests  were 
wrong,  that  they  were  relics  of  the  past  and  in 
hopeless  conflict  with  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  American  liberty  and  democracy.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  implied  that  a religious  test  was  far 
from  being  of  necessity  an  evil.  He  laid  down  the 
sound  doctrine  that  qualifications  for  office  were 
purely  matters  of  expediency,  and  then  argued 
that  it  was  wise  to  remove  the  religious  test  be- 
cause, while  its  principle  would  be  practically  en- 
forced by  a Christian  community,  it  was  offensive 
to  some  persons  to  have  it  engrafted  on  the  Con- 
stitution. The  speech  in  which  he  set  forth  these 
views  was  an  able  and  convincing  one,  entirely 
worthy  of  its  author,  and  the  removal  of  the  test 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  CONVENTION.  113 

was  carried  by  a large  majority.  It  is  an  interest- 
ing example  of  the  combination  of  steady  conser- 
vatism and  breadth  of  view  which  Mr.  Webster  al- 
ways displayed.  Bat  it  also  brings  into  strong 
relief  his  aversion  to  radical  general  principles  as 
grounds  of  action,  and  his  inborn  hostility  to  far- 
reaching  change. 

His  two  other  important  speeches  in  this  con- 
vention have  been  preserved  in  his  works,  and  are 
purely  and  wholly  conservative  in  tone  and  spirit. 
The  first  related  to  the  basis  of  representation  in 
the  Senate,  whose  members  were  then  apportioned 
according  to  the  amount  of  taxable  property  in 
the  districts.  This  system,  Mr.  Webster  thought, 
should  be  retained,  and  his  speech  was  a most 
masterly  discussion  of  the  whole  system  of  gov- 
ernment by  two  Houses.  He  urged  the  necessity 
of  a basis  of  representation  for  the  upper  House 
different  from  that  of  the  lower,  in  order  to  make 
the  former  fully  serve  its  purpose  of  a check  and 
balance  to  the  popular  branch.  This  important 
point  he  handled  in  the  most  skilful  manner,  and 
there  is  no  escape  from  his  conclusion  that  a dif- 
ference of  origin  in  the  two  legislative  branches 
of  the  government  is  essential  to  the  full  and  per- 
fect operation  of  the  system.  This  difference  of 
origin,  he  argued,  could  be  obtained  only  by  the 
introduction  of  property  as  a factor  in  the  basis 
of  representation.  The  weight  of  his  speech  was 
directed  to  defending  the  principle  of  a suitable 
8 


114 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


representation  of  property,  which  was  a subject 
requiring  very  adroit  treatment.  The  doctrine  is 
one  which  probably  would  not  be  tolerated  now- 
in  any  part  of  this  country,  and  even  in  1820,  in 
Massachusetts,  it  was  a delicate  matter  to  advocate 
it,  for  it  was  hostile  to  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  people.  Having  established  his  position  that 
it  was  all  important  to  make  the  upper  branch  a 
strong  and  effective  check,  he  said  that  the  point 
in  issue  was  not  whether  property  offered  the  best 
method  of  distinguishing  between  the  two  Houses, 
but  whether  it  was  not  better  than  no  distinction 
at  all.  This  being  answered  affirmatively,  the 
next  question  to  be  considered  was  whether  prop- 
erty, not  in  the  sense  of  personal  possessions  and 
personal  power,  but  in  a general  sense,  ought  not 
to  have  its  due  influence  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment. He  maintained  the  justice  of  this  proposi- 
tion by  showing  that  our  constitutions  rest  largely 
on  the  general  equality  of  property,  which,  in  turn, 
is  due  to  our  laws  of  distribution.  This  led  him 
into  a discussion  of  the  principles  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  property.  He  pointed  out  the  dangers 
arising  in  England  from  the  growth  of  a few  large 
estates,  while  on  the  other  hand  he  predicted  that 
the  rapid  and  minute  subdivision  of  property  in 
France  would  change  the  character  of  the  govern- 
ment, and,  far  from  strengthening  the  crown,  as 
was  then  generally  prophesied,  would  have  a 
directly  opposite  effect,  by  creating  a large  and 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  CONVENTION.  115 

united  body  of  small  proprietors,  who  would  sooner 
or  later  control  the  country.  He  illustrated,  in 
this  way,  the  value  and  importance  of  a general 
equality  of  property,  and  of  steadiness  in  legisla- 
tion affecting  it.  These  were  the  reasons,  he  con- 
tended, for  making  property  the  basis  of  the  check 
and  balance  furnished  to  our  system  of  govern- 
ment by  an  upper  House.  Moreover,  all  property 
being  subject  to  taxation  for  the  purpose  of  educat- 
ing the  children  of  both  rich  and  poor,  it  deserved 
some  representation  for  this  valuable  aid  to  gov- 
ernment. It  is  impossible,  in  a few  lines,1  to  do 
justice  to  Mr.  Webster’s  argument.  It  exhibited 
a great  deal  of  tact  and  ingenuity,  especially  in 
the  distinction  so  finely  drawn  between  property 
as  an  element  of  personal  power  and  property  in  a 
general  sense,  and  so  distributed  as  to  be  a bul- 
wark of  liberty.  The  speech  is,  on  this  account, 
an  interesting  one,  for  Mr.  Webster  was  rarely  in- 
genious, and  hardly  ever  got  over  difficulties  by 
fine-spun  distinctions.  In  this  instance  adroitness 
was  very  necessary,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  em- 
ploy it.  By  his  skilful  treatment,  by  his  illus- 
trations drawn  from  England  and  France,  which 
show  the  accuracy  and  range  of  his  mental  vision 
in  matters  of  politics  and  public  economy,  both  at 
home  and  abroad,  and  with  the  powerful  support 
of  Judge-  Story,  Mr.  Webster  carried  his  point. 

1 My  brief  statement  is  merely  a further  condensation  of  the 
excellent  abstract  of  this  speech  made  by  Mr  Curtis. 


116 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


The  element  of  property  representation  in  the 
Senate  was  retained,  but  so  wholly  by  the  ability 
of  its  advocate,  that  it  was  not  long  afterwards  re- 
moved. 

Mr.  Webster’s  other  important  speech  related 
to  the  judiciary.  The  Constitution  provided  that 
the  judges,  who  held  office  during  good  behavior, 
should  be  removable  by  the  Governor  on  an  ad- 
dress from  the  Legislature.  This  was  considered 
to  meet  cases  of  incompetency  or  of  personal  mis- 
conduct, which  could  not  be  reached  by  impeach- 
ment. Mr.  Webster  desired  to  amend  the  clause 
so  as  to  require  a two  thirds  vote  for  the  passage 
of  the  address,  and  that  reasons  should  be  assigned, 
and  a hearing  assured  to  the  judge  who  was  the 
subject  of  the  proceedings.  These  changes  were 
all  directed  to  the  further  protection  of  the  bench, 
and  it  was  in  this  connection  that  Mr.  Webster 
made  a most  admirable  and  effective  speech  on 
the  well-worn  but  noble  theme  of  judicial  inde- 
pendence. He  failed  to  carry  conviction,  how- 
ever, and  his  amendments  were  all  lost.  The 
perils  which  he  anticipated  have  never  arisen,  and 
the  good  sense  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  has 
prevented  the  slightest  abuse  of  what  Mr.  Web- 
ster rightly  esteemed  a dangerous  power. 

Mr.  Webster’s  continual  and  active  exertion 
throughout  the  session  of  this  convention  brought 
him  great  applause  and  admiration,  and  showed 
his  powers  in  a new  light.  Judge  Story,  with 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION.  117 

generous  enthusiasm,  wrote  to  Mr.  Mason,  after 
the  convention  adjourned  : — 

“ Our  friend  Webster  has  gained  a noble  reputation. 
He  was  before  known  as  a lawyer ; but  he  has  now  se- 
cured the  title  of  an  eminent  and  enlightened  statesman. 
It  was  a glorious  field  for  him,  and  he  has  had  an  ample 
harvest.  The  whole  force  of  his  great  mind  was  brought 
out,  and,  in  several  speeches,  he  commanded  universal 
admiration.  He  always  led  the  van,  and  was  most  skilful 
and  instantaneous  in  attack  and  retreat.  He  fought,  as 
I have  told  him,  in  the  ‘ imminent  deadly  breach  ; ’ and 
all  I could  do  was  to  skirmish,  in  aid  of  him,  upon 
some  of  the  enemy’s  outposts.  On  the  whole,  I never 
was  more  proud  of  any  display  than  his  in  my  life,  and 
I am  much  deceived  if  the  well-earned  popularity,  so 
justly  and  so  boldly  acquired  by  him  on  this  occasion, 
does  not  carry  him,  if  he  lives,  to  the  presidency.” 

While  this  convention,  so  memorable  in  the  ca- 
reer of  Mr.  Webster  and  so  filled  with  the  most 
absorbing  labors,  was  in  session,  he  achieved  a 
still  wider  renown  in  a very  different  field.  On 
the  22d  of  December,  1820,  he  delivered  at  Plym- 
outh the  oration  which  commemorated  the  two 
hundredth  anniversary  of  the  landing  of  the  Pil- 
grims. The  theme  was  a splendid  one,  both  in 
the  intrinsic  interest  of  the  event  itself,  in  the 
character  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  the  vast  results 
which  had  grown  from  their  humble  beginnings, 
and  in  the  principles  of  free  government,  which 
had  spread  from  the  cabins  of  the  exiles  over  the 


118 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


face  of  a continent,  and  had  become  the  common 
heritage  of  a great  people.  We  are  fortunate  in 
having  a description  of  the  orator,  written  at  the 
time  by  a careful  observer  and  devoted  friend, 
Mr.  Ticknor,  who  says  : — 

“ Friday  Evening.  — I have  run  away  from  a great 
levee  there  is  down-stairs,  thronging  in  admiration  round 
Mr.  Webster,  to  tell  you  a little  word  about  his  oration. 
Yet  I do  not  dare  to  trust  myself  about  it,  and  I warn 
you  beforehand  that  I have  not  the  least  confidence  in 
my  own  opinion.  His  manner  carried  me  away  com- 
pletely ; not,  I think,  that  I could  have  been  so  carried 
away  if  it  had  been  a poor  oration,  for  of  that,  I appre- 
hend, there  can  be  no  fear.  It  must  have  been  a great, 
a very  great  performance,  but  whether  it  was  so  abso- 
lutely unrivalled  as  I imagined  when  I was  under  the 
immediate  influence  of  his  presence,  of  his  tones,  of  his 
looks,  I cannot  be  sure  till  I have  read  it,  for  it  seems 
to  me  incredible. 

“ I was  never  so  excited  by  public  speaking  before  in 
my  life.  Three  or  four  times  I thought  my  temples 
would  burst  with  the  gush  of  blood  ; for,  after  all,  you 
must  know  that  I am  aware  it  is  no  connected  and  com- 
pacted whole,  but  a collection  of  wonderful  fragments 
of  burning  eloquence,  to  which  his  whole  manner  gave 
tenfold  force.  When  I came  out  I was  almost  afraid 
to  come  near  to  him.  It  seemed  to  me  as  if  he  was 
like  the  mount  that  might  not  be  touched  and  that  burned 
with  fire.  I was  beside  myself,  and  am  so  still.” 

“ Saturday.  — Mr.  Webster  was  in  admirable  spirits. 
On  Thursday  evening  he  was  considerably  agitated  and 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION. 


119 


oppressed,  and  yesterday  morning  he  had  not  his  natural 
look  at  all ; but  since  his  entire  success  he  has  been  as 
gay  and  playful  as  a kitten.  The  party  came  in  one 
after  another,  and  the  spirits  of  all  were  kindled  brighter 
and  brighter,  and  we  fairly  sat  up  till  after  two  o’clock. 
I think,  therefore,  we  may  now  safely  boast  the  Plym- 
outh expedition  has  gone  off  admirably.” 

Mr.  Ticknor  was  a man  of  learning  and  schol- 
arship, just  returned  from  a prolonged  sojourn  in 
Europe,  where  he  had  met  and  conversed  with  all 
the  most  distinguished  men  of  the  day,  both  in 
England  and  on  the  Continent.  He  was  not, 
therefore,  disposed  by  training  or  recent  habits  to 
indulge  a facile  enthusiasm,  and  such  deep  emotion 
as  he  experienced  must  have  been  due  to  no  ordi- 
nary cause.  He  was,  in  fact,  profoundly  moved 
because  he  had  been  listening  to  one  of  the  great 
masters  of  eloquence  exhibiting,  for  the  first  time, 
his  full  powers  in  a branch  of  the  art  much  more 
cultivated  in  America  by  distinguished  men  of  all 
professions  than  is  the  custom  elsewhere.  The 
Plymouth  oration  belongs  to  what,  for  lack  of  a 
better  name,  we  must  call  occasional  oratory. 
This  form  of  address,  taking  an  anniversary,  a 
great  historical  event  or  character,  a celebration, 
or  occasion  of  any  sort  as  a starting  point,  per- 
mits either  a close  adherence  to  the  original  text 
or  the  widest  latitude  of  treatment.  The  field  is 
a broad  and  inviting  one.  That  it  promises  an 
easy  success  is  shown  by  the  innumerable  produc- 


120 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tions  of  this  kind  which,  for  many  years,  have  been 
showered  upon  the  country.  That  the  promise  is 
fallacious  is  proved  by  the  very  small  number 
among  the  countless  host  of  such  addresses  which 
survive  the  moment  of  their  utterance.  The  facil- 
ity of  saying  something  is  counterbalanced  by  the 
difficulty  of  saying  anything  worth  hearing.  The 
temptation  to  stray  and  to  mistake  platitude  for 
originality  is  almost  always  fatal. 

Mr.  Webster  was  better  fitted  than  any  man 
who  has  ever  lived  in  this  country  for  the  perilous 
task  of  occasional  oratory.  The  freedom  of  move- 
ment which  renders  most  speeches  of  this  class 
diluted  and  commonplace  was  exactly  what  he 
needed.  He  required  abundant  intellectual  room 
for  a proper  display  of  his  powei’s,  and  he  had  the 
rare  quality  of  being  able  to  range  over  vast  spaces 
of  time  and  thought  without  becoming  attenuated 
in  what  he  said.  Soaring  easily,  with  a powerful 
sweep  he  returned  again  to  earth  without  jar  or 
shock.  He  had  dignity  and  grandeur  of  thought, 
expression,  and  manner,  and  a great  subject  never 
became  small  by  his  treatment  of  it.  He  had,  too, 
a fine  historical  imagination,  and  could  breathe 
life  and  passion  into  the  dead  events  of  the  past. 

Mr.  Ticknor  speaks  of  the  Plymouth  oration  as 
impressing  him  as  a series  of  eloquent  fragments. 
The  impression  was  perfectly  correct.  Mr.  Web- 
ster touched  on  the  historical  event,  on  the  char- 
acter of  the  Pilgrims,  on  the  growth  and  future  of 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION.  121 

the  country,  on  liberty  and  constitutional  princi- 
ples, on  education,  and  on  human  slavery.  This 
was  entirely  proper  to  such  an  address.  The  diffi- 
culty lay  in  doing  it  well,  and  Mr.  Webster  did  it 
as  perfectly  as  it  ever  has  been  done.  The  thoughts 
were  fine,  and  were  expressed  in  simple  and  beau- 
tiful words.  The  delivery  was  grand  and  impres- 
sive, and  the  presentation  of  each  successive  theme 
glowed  with  subdued  fire.  There  was  no  straining 
after  mere  rhetorical  effect,  but  an  artistic  treat- 
ment of  a succession  of  great  subjects  in  a general 
and  yet  vivid  and  picturesque  fashion.  The  emo- 
tion produced  by  the  Plymouth  oration  was  akin 
to  that  of  listening  to  the  strains  of  music  issuing 
from  a full-toned  organ.  Those  who  heard  it  did 
not  seek  to  gratify  their  reason  or  look  for  convic- 
tion to  be  brought  to  their  understanding.  It  did 
not  appeal  to  the  logical  faculties  or  to  the  pas- 
sions, which  are  roused  by  the  keen  contests  of 
parliamentary  debate.  It  was  the  divine  gift  of 
speech,  the  greatest  instrument  given  to  man,  used 
with  surpassing  talent,  and  the  joy  and  pleasure 
which  it  brought  were  those  which  come  from  lis- 
tening to  the  song  of  a great  singer,  or  looking 
upon  the  picture  of  a great  artist. 

The  Plymouth  oration,  which  was  at  once  print- 
ed and  published,  was  received  with  a universal 
burst  of  applause.  It  had  more  literary  success 
than  anything  which  had  at  that  time  appeared, 
except  from  the  pen  of  Washington  Irving.  The 


122 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


public,  without  stopping  to  analyze  their  own  feel- 
ings, or  the  oration  itself,  recognized  at  once  that 
a new  genius  had  come  before  them,  a man  en- 
dowed with  the  noble  gift  of  eloquence,  and  capa- 
ble by  the  exei’cise  of  his  talents  of  moving  and 
inspiring  great  masses  of  his  fellow-men.  Mr. 
Webster  was  then  of  an  age  to  feel  fully  the  glow 
of  a great  success,  both  at  the  moment  and  when 
the  cooler  and  more  critical  approbation  came. 
He  was  fresh  and  young,  a strong  man  rejoicing 
to  run  the  race.  Mr.  Ticknor  says,  in  speaking 
of  the  oration  : — 

“ The  passage  at  the  end,  where,  spreading  his  arms 
as  if  to  embrace  them,  he  welcomed  future  generations 
to  the  great  inheritance  which  we  have  enjoyed,  was 
spoken  with  the  most  attractive  sweetness  and  that  pe- 
culiar smile  which  in  him  was  always  so  charming.  The 
effect  of  the  whole  was  very  great.  As  soon  as  he  got 
home  to  our  lodgings,  all  the  principal  people  then  in 
Plymouth  crowded  about  him.  He  was  full  of  anima- 
tion, and  radiant  with  happiness.  But  there  was  some- 
thing about  him  very  grand  and  imposing  at  the  same 
time.  I never  saw  him  at  any  time  when  he  seemed  to 
me  to  be  more  conscious  of  his  own  powers,  or  to  have 
a more  true  and  natural  enjoyment  from  their  posses- 
sion.” 

Amid  all  the  applause  and  glory,  there  was 
one  letter  of  congratulation  and  acknowledgment 
which  must  have  given  Mr.  Webster  more  pleas- 
ure than  anything  else.  It  came  from  John  Ad- 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION. 


128 


ams,  who  never  did  anything  by  halves.  Whether 
he  praised  or  condemned,  he  did  it  heartily  and 
ardently,  and  such  an  oration  on  New  England 
went  straight  to  the  heart  of  the  eager,  warm- 
blooded old  patriot.  His  commendation,  too,  was 
worth  having,  for  he  spoke  as  one  having  author- 
ity. John  Adams  had  been  one  of  the  eloquent 
men  and  the  most  forcible  debater  of  the  first 
Congress.  He  had  listened  to  the  great  orators  of 
other  lands.  He  had  heard  Pitt  and  Fox,  Burke 
and  Sheridan,  and  had  been  present  at  the  trial  of 
Warren  Hastings.  His  unstinted  praise  meant 
and  still  means  a great  deal,  and  it  concludes  with 
one  of  the  finest  and  most  graceful  of  compli- 
ments. The  oration,  he  says, 

“ is  the  effort  of  a great  mind,  richly  stored  with  every 
species  of  information.  If  there  be  an  American  who 
can  read  it  without  tears,  I am  not  that  American.  It 
enters  more  perfectly  into  the  genuine  spirit  of  New 
England  than  any  production  I ever  read.  The  obser- 
vations on  the  Greeks  and  Romans  ; on  colonization  in 
general ; on  the  West  India  islands  ; on  the  past,  pres- 
ent, and  future  of  America,  and  on  the  slave-trade,  are 
sagacious,  profound,  and  affecting  in  a high  degree.” 

“ Mr.  Burke  is  no  longer  entitled  to  the  praise  — the 
most  consummate  orator  of  modern  times.” 

“ What  can  I say  of  what  regards  myself  ? To  my 
humble  name,  Exegisti  monumentum  cere  perennius 

Many  persons  consider  the  Plymouth  oration  to 
be  the  finest  of  all  Mr.  Webster’s  efforts  in  this 


124 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


field.  It  is  certainly  one  of  the  very  best  of  his 
productions,  but  he  showed  on  the  next  great  oc- 
casion a distinct  improvement,  which  he  long 
maintained.  Five  years  after  the  oration  at 
Plymouth,  he  delivered  the  address  on  the  laying 
of  the  corner-stone  of  Bunker  Hill  monument. 
The  superiority  to  the  first  oration  was  not  in  es- 
sentials, but  in  details,  the  fruit  of  a ripening  and 
expanding  mind.  At  Bunker  Hill,  as  at  Plym- 
outh, he  displayed  the  massiveness  of  thought, 
the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  expression,  and  the 
range  of  vision  which  are  all  so  characteristic  of 
his  intellect  and  which  were  so  much  enhanced 
by  his  wonderful  physical  attributes.  But  in  the 
later  oration  there  is  a greater  finish  and  smooth- 
ness. We  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  Plymouth 
oration  is  a succession  of  eloquent  fragments  ; the 
same  is  true  of  the  Bunker  Hill  address,  but  we 
no  longer  realize  it.  The  continuity  is,  in  appear- 
ance, unbroken,  and  the  whole  work  is  rounded 
and  polished.  The  style,  too,  is  now  perfected. 
It  is  at  once  plain,  direct,  massive,  and  vivid. 
The  sentences  are  generally  short  and  always 
clear,  but  never  monotonous.  The  preference  for 
Anglo-Saxon  words  and  the  exclusion  of  Latin  de- 
rivatives are  extremely  marked,  and  we  find  here 
in  rare  perfection  that  highest  attribute  of  style, 
the  union  of  simplicity,  picturesqueness,  and  force. 

In  the  first  Bunker  Hill  oration  Mr.  Webster 
touched  his  highest  point  in  the  difficult  task  of 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION.  125 

commemorative  oratorj^.  In  that  field  he  not  only- 
stands  unrivalled,  but  no  one  has  approached  him. 
The  innumerable  productions  of  this  class  by 
other  men,  many  of  a high  degree  of  excellence, 
are  forgotten,  while  those  of  Webster  form  part 
of  the  education  of  every  American  school- boy,  are 
widely  read,  and  have  entered  into  the  literature 
and  thought  of  the  country.  The  orations  of 
Plymouth  and  Bunker  Hill  are  grouped  in  Web- 
ster’s works  with  a number  of  other  speeches  pro- 
fessedly of  the  same  kind.  But  only  a very  few 
of  these  are  strictly  occasional ; the  great  majority 
are  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  political  speeches,  con- 
taining merely  passages  here  and  there  in  the 
same  vein  as  his  great  commemorative  addresses. 
Before  finally  leaving  the  subject,  however,  it  will 
be  well  to  glance  for  a moment  at  the  few  orations 
which  properly  belong  to  the  same  class  as  the 
first  two  which  we  have  been  considering. 

The  Bunker  Hill  oration,  after  the  lapse  of  only 
a year,  was  followed  by  the  celebrated  eulogy 
upon  Adams  and  Jefferson.  This  usually  and 
with  justice  is  ranked  in  merit  with  its  two  imme- 
diate predecessors.  As  a whole  it  is  not,  perhaps, 
quite  so  much  admired,  but  it  contains  the  famous 
imaginary  speech  of  John  Adams,  which  is  the 
best  known  and  most  hackneyed  passage  in  any 
of  these  orations.  The  opening  lines,  “ Sink  or 
swim,  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I give  my 
hand  and  my  heart  to  this  vote,”  since  Mr.  Web- 


126 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ster  first  pronounced  them  in  Faneuil  Hall,  have 
risen  even  to  the  dignity  of  a familiar  quotation. 
The  passage,  indeed,  is  perhaps  the  best  example 
we  have  of  the  power  of  Mr.  Webster’s  historical 
imagination.  He  had  some  fragmentary  sen- 
tences, the  character  of  the  man,  the  nature  of  the 
debate,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  time  to  build 
upon,  and  from  these  materials  he  constructed  a 
speech  which  was  absolutely  startling  in  its  life- 
like force.  The  revolutionary  Congress,  on  the 
verge  of  the  tremendous  step  which  was  to  sepa- 
rate them  from  England,  rises  before  us  as  we 
read  the  burning  words  which  the  imagination  of 
the  speaker  put  into  the  mouth  of  John  Adams. 
They  are  not  only  instinct  with  life,  but  with  the 
life  of  impending  revolution,  and  they  glow  with 
the  warmth  and  strength  of  feeling  so  character- 
istic of  their  supposed  author.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  general  belief  at  the  time  was  that  the 
passage  was  an  extract  from  a speech  actually  de- 
livered by  John  Adams.  Mr.  Webster,  as  well 
as  Mr.  Adams’s  son  and  grandson,  received  nu- 
merous letters  of  inquiry  on  this  point,  and  it  is 
possible  that  many  people  still  persist  in  this  be- 
lief as  to  the  origin  of  the  passage.  Such  an 
effect  was  not  produced  by  mere  clever  imitation, 
for  there  was  nothing  to  imitate,  but  by  the  force 
of  a powerful  historic  imagination  and  a strong 
artistic  sense  in  its  management. 

In  1828  Mr.  Webster  delivered  an  address  be- 


THE  PLYMOUTH  ORATION. 


127 


fore  the  Mechanics’  Institute  in  Boston,  on  “ Sci- 
ence in  connection  with  the  Mechanic  Arts,”  a 
subject  which  was  outside  of  his  usual  lines  of 
thought,  and  offered  no  especial  attractions  to 
him.  This  oration  is  graceful  and  strong,  and 
possesses  sufficient  and  appropriate  eloquence.  It 
is  chiefly  interesting,  however,  from  the  reserve 
and  self-control,  dictated  by  a nice  sense  of  fit- 
ness, which  it  exhibited.  Omniscience  was  not 
Mr.  Webster’s  foible.  He  never  was  guilty  of 
Lord  Brougham's  weakness  of  seeking  to  prove 
himself  master  of  universal  knowledge.  In  de- 
livering an  address  on  science  and  invention,  there 
was  a sti’ong  temptation  to  an  orator  like  Mr. 
Webster  to  substitute  glittering  rhetoric  for  real 
knowledge  ; but  the  address  at  the  Mechanics’  In- 
stitute is  simply  the  speech  of  a very  eloquent  and 
a liberally  educated  man  upon  a subject  with 
which  he  had  only  the  most  general  acquaintance. 

The  other  orations  of  this  class  were  those  on 
“ The  Character  of  Washington,”  the  second 
Bunker  Hill  address,  “ The  Landing  at  Plym- 
outh,” delivered  in  New  York  at  the  dinner  of  the 
Pilgrim  Society,  the  remarks  on  the  death  of 
Judge  Story  and  of  Mr.  Mason,  and  finally  the 
speech  on  laying  the  corner-stone  for  the  addition 
to  the  Capitol,  in  1851.  These  were  all  compara- 
tively brief  speeches,  with  the  exception  of  that 
at  Bunker  Hill,  which,  although  very  fine,  was 
perceptibly  inferior  to  his  first  effort  when  the 


128 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


corner-stone  of  the  monument  was  laid.  The  ad- 
dress on  the  character  of  Washington,  to  an  Amer- 
ican the  most  dangerous  of  great  and  well-worn 
topics,  is  of  a high  order  of  eloquence.  The  theme 
appealed  to  Mr.  Webster  strongly  and  brought  out 
his  best  powers,  which  were  peculiarly  fitted  to  do 
justice  to  the  noble,  massive,  and  dignified  char- 
acter of  the  subject.  The  last  of  these  addresses, 
that  on  the  addition  to  the  Capitol,  was  in  a pro- 
phetic vein,  and,  while  it  shows  but  little  diminu- 
tion of  strength,  has  a sadness  even  in  its  splendid 
anticipations  of  the  future,  which  makes  it  one  of 
the  most  impressive  of  its  class.  All  those  which 
have  been  mentioned,  however,  show  the  hand  of 
the  master  and  are  worthy  to  be  preserved  in  the 
volumes  which  contain  the  noble  series  that  began 
in  the  early  flush  of  genius  with  the  brilliant  ora- 
tion in  the  Plymouth  church,  and  closed  with  the 
words  uttered  at  Washington,  under  the  shadow 
of  the  Capitol,  when  the  light  of  life  was  fading 
and  the  end  of  all  things  was  at  hand. 


CHAPTER  V. 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 

The  thorough  knowledge  of  the  principles  of 
government  and  legislation,  the  practical  states- 
manship, and  the  capacity  for  debate  shown  in  the 
State  convention,  combined  with  the  splendid  ora- 
tion at  Plymouth  to  make  Mr.  Webster  the  most 
conspicuous  man  in  New  England,  with  the  single 
exception  of  John  Quincy  Adams.  There  was, 
therefore,  a strong  and  general  desire  that  he 
should  return  to  public  life.  He  accepted  with 
some  reluctance  the  nomination  to  Congress  from 
the  Boston  district  in  1822,  and  in  December, 
1823,  took  his  seat. 

The  six  years  which  had  elapsed  since  Mr. 
Webster  left  Washington  had  been  a period  of 
political  quiet.  The  old  parties  had  ceased  to  rep- 
resent any  distinctive  principles,  and  the  Federal- 
ists scarcely  existed  as  an  organization.  Mr.  Web- 
ster, during  this  interval,  had  remained  almost 
wholly  quiescent  in  regard  to  public  affairs.  He 
had  urged  the  visit  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  the  North, 
which  had'  done  so  much  to  hasten  the  inevitable 
dissolution  of  parties.  He  had  received  Mr.  Cal- 
9 


130 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


houn  when  that  gentleman  visited  Boston,  and 
their  friendship  and  apparent  intimacy  were  such 
that  the  South  Carolinian  was  thought  to  be  his 
host's  candidate  for  the  presidency.  Except  for 
this  and  the  part  which  he  took  in  the  Boston  op- 
position to  the  Missouri  compromise  and  to  the 
tariff,  matters  to  be  noticed  in  connection  with 
later  events,  Mr.  Webster  had  held  aloof  from 
political  conflict. 

When  he  returned  to  Washington  in  1823,  the 
situation  was  much  altered  from  that  which  he 
had  left  in  1817.  In  reality  there  were  no  par- 
ties, or  only  one ; but  the  all-powerful  Republicans 
who  had  adopted,  under  the  pressure  of  foreign 
war,  most  of  the  Federalist  principles  so  obnox- 
ious to  Jefferson  and  his  school,  were  split  up  into 
as  many  factions  as  there  were  candidates  for  the 
presidency.  It  was  a period  of  transition  in  which 
personal  politics  had  taken  the  place  of  those 
founded  on  opposing  principles,  and  this  “era  of 
good  feeling”  was  marked  by  the  intense  bitter- 
ness of  the  conflicts  produced  by  these  personal 
rivalries.  In  addition  to  the  factions  which  were 
battling  for  the  control  of  the  Republican  party 
and  for  the  great  prize  of  the  presidency,  there 
was  still  another  faction,  composed  of  the  old  Fed- 
eralists, who,  although  without  organization,  still 
held  to  their  name  and  their  prejudices,  and  clung 
together  more  as  a matter  of  habit  than  with  any 
practical  object.  Mr.  Webster  had  been  one  of 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


131 


the  Federalist  leaders  in  the  old  days,  and  when 
he  returned  to  public  life  with  all  the  distinction 
which  he  had  won  in  other  fields,  he  was  at  once 
recognized  as  the  chief  and  head  of  all  that  now 
remained  of  the  great  party  of  Washington  and 
Hamilton.  No  Federalist  could  hope  to  be  Presi- 
dent, and  for  this  very  reason  Federalist  support 
was  eagerly  sought  by  all  Republican  candidates 
for  the  presidency.  The  favor  of  Mr.  Webster  as 
the  head  of  an  independent  and  necessarily  disin- 
terested faction  was,  of  course,  strongly  desired  in 
many  quarters.  His  political  position  and  his 
high  reputation  as  a lawyer,  orator,  and  statesman 
made  him,  therefore,  a character  of  the  first  im- 
portance in  Washington,  a fact  to  which  Mr.  Clay 
at  once  gave  public  recognition  by  placing  his  fu- 
ture rival  at  the  head  of  the  J udiciary  Committee 
of  the  House. 

The  six  years  of  congressional  life  which  now 
ensued  were  among  the  most  useful  if  not  the 
most  brilliant  in  Mr.  Webster’s  whole  public  ca- 
reer. He  was  free  from  the  annoyance  of  oppo- 
sition at  home,  and  was  twice  returned  by  a 
practically  unanimous  popular  vote.  He  held  a 
commanding  and  influential  and  at  the  same  time 
a thoroughly  independent  position  in  Washington, 
where  he  was  regarded  as  the  first  man  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  in  point  of  ability  and  imputa- 
tion. He  was  not  only  able  to  show  his  great 
capacity  for  practical  legislation,  but  he  was  at 


132 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


liberty  to  advance  his  own  views  on  public  ques- 
tions in  his  own  way,  unburdened  by  the  outside 
influences  of  party  and  of  association  which  had 
affected  him  so  much  in  his  previous  term  of  ser- 
vice and  were  soon  to  reassert  their  sway  in  all 
1 's  subsequent  career. 


^ His  return  to  Congress  was  at  once  signalized 
by  a great  speech,  which,  although  of  no  practical 
or  immediate  moment,  deserves  careful  attention 
from  the  light  which  it  throws  on  the  workings  of 
his  mind  and  the  development  of  his  opinions  in 
regard  to  his  country.  The  House  had  been  in 
session  but  a few  days  when  Mr.  Webster  offered 
a resolution  in  favor  of  providing  by  law  for  the 
expenses  incident  to  the  appointment  of  a com- 
missioner to  Greece,  should  the  President  deem 
such  an  appointment  expedient.  The  Greeks  were 
then  in  the  throes  of  revolution,  and  the  sympathy 
for  the  heirs  of  so  much  glory  in  their  struggle  for 
freedom  was  strong  among  the  American  people. 
When  Mr.  Webster  rose  on  January  19,  1824,  to 
move  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  which  he  had 
laid  upon  the  table  of  the  House,  the  chamber  was 
crowded  and  the  galleries  were  filled  by  a large 
and  fashionable  audience  attracted  by  the  repu- 
tation of  the  orator  and  the  interest  felt  in  his 
subject.  His  hearers  were  disappointed  if  they 
expected  a great  rhetorical  display,  for  which  the 
nature  of  the  subject  and  the  classic  memories 
clustering  about  it  offered  such  strong  tempta- 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


133 


tions.  Mr.  Webster  did  not  rise  for  that  purpose, 
nor  to  make  capital  by  an  appeal  to  a temporary 
popular  interest.  His  speech  was  for  a wholly 
different  purpose.  It  was  the  first  expression  of 
that  grand  conception  of  the  American  Union 
which  had  vaguely  excited  his  youthful  enthu- 
siasm. This  conception  had  now  come  to  be  part 
of  his  intellectual  being,  and  then  and  always 
stirred  his  imagination  and  his  affections  to  their 
inmost  depths.  It  embodied  the  principle  from 
which  he  never  swerved,  and  led  to  all  that  he 
represents  and  to  all  that  his  influence  means  in 
our  history. 

As  the  first  expression  of  his  conception  of  the 
destiny  of  the  United  States  as  a great  and  united 
nation,  Mr.  Webster  was,  naturally,  “more  fond 
of  this  child  ” than  of  any  other  of  his  intellectual 
family.  The  speech  itself  was  a noble  one,  but  it 
was  an  eloquent  essay  rather  than  a great  exam- 
ple of  the  oratory  of  debate.  This  description  can 
in  no  other  case  be  applied  to  Mr.  Webster’s  par- 
liamentary efforts,  but  in  this  instance  it  is  cor- 
rect, because  the  occasion  justified  such  a form. 
Mr.  Webster’s  purpose  was  to  show  that,  though 
the  true  policy  of  the  United  States  absolutely 
debarred  them  from  taking  any  part  in  the  affairs 
of  Europe,  yet  they  had  an  important  duty  to  per- 
form in  exercising  their  proper  influence  on  the 
public  opinion  of  the  world.  Europe  was  then 
struggling  with  the  monstrous  principles  of  the 


134 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


“Holy  Alliance.”  Those  principles  Mr.  Webster 
reviewed  historically.  He  showed  their  pernicious 
tendency,  their  hostility  to  all  modern  theories  of 
government,  and  their  especial  opposition  to  the 
principles  of  American  liberty.  If  the  doctrines 
of  the  Congress  of  Laybach  were  right  and  could 
be  made  to  prevail,  then  those  of  America  were 
wrong  and  the  systems  of  popular  government 
adopted  in  the  United  States  were  doomed. 
Against  such  infamous  principles  it  behooved  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  raise  their  voice. 
Mr.  Webster  sketched  the  history  of  Greece,  and 
made  a fine  appeal  to  Americans  to  give  an  ex- 
pression of  their  sympathy  to  a people  struggling 
for  freedom.  He  proclaimed,  so  that  all  men 
might  hear,  the  true  duty  of  the  United  States 
toward  the  oppressed  of  any  land,  and  the  respon- 
sibility which  they  held  to  exert  their  influence 
upon  the  opinions  of  mankind.  The  national  des- 
tiny of  his  country  in  regard  to  other  nations  was 
his  theme ; to  give  to  the  glittering  declaration 
of  Canning,  that  he  would  “ call  in  the  new  world 
to  redress  the  balance  of  the  old,”  a deep  and  real 
significance  was  his  object. 

The  speech  touched  Mr.  Clay  to  the  quick. 
He  supported  Mr.  Webster’s  resolution  with  all 
the  ardor  of  his  genei’ous  nature,  and  supplemented 
it  by  another  against  the  interference  of  Spain  in 
South  America.  A stormy  debate  followed,  viv- 
ified by  the  flings  and  taunts  of  John  Randolph, 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


135 


but  the  unwillingness  to  take  action  was  so 
great  that  Mr.  Webster  did  not  press  his  resolu- 
tion to  a vote.  He  had  at  the  outset  looked  for 
a practical  result  from  his  resolution,  and  had  de- 
sired the  appointment  of  Mr.  Everett  as  commis- 
sioner, a plan  in  which  he  had  been  encouraged 
by  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had  given  him  to  under- 
stand that  the  Executive  regarded  the  Greek  mis- 
sion with  favor.  Before  he  delivered  his  speech 
he  became  aware  that  Calhoun  had  misled  him, 
that  Mr.  Adams,  the  Secretary  of  State,  con- 
sidered Everett  too  much  of  a partisan,  and  that 
the  administration  was  wholly  averse  to  any  ac- 
tion in  the  premises.  This  destroyed  all  hope  of 
a practical  result,  and  made  an  adverse  vote  cer- 
tain. The  only  course  was  to  avoid  a decision 
and  trust  to  what  he  said  for  an  effect  on  public 
opinion.  The  real  purpose  of  the  speech,  however, 
was  achieved.  Mr.  Webster  had  exposed  and  de- 
nounced the  Holy  Alliance  as  hostile  to  the  liber- 
ties of  mankind,  and  had  declared  the  unalterable 
enmity  of  the  United  States  to  its  reactionary 
doctrines.  The  speech  was  widely  read,  not  only 
wherever  English  was  spoken,  but  it  was  trans- 
lated into  all  the  languages  of  Europe,  and  was 
circulated  throughout  South  America.  It  increased 
Mr.  Webster’s  fame  at  home  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  his  reputation  abroad.  Above  all,  it 
stamped  him  as  a statesman  of  a broad  and  na- 
tional cast  of  mind. 


136 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


He  now  settled  down  to  hard  and  continuous 
labor  at  the  routine  business  of  the  House,  and  it 
was  not  until  the  end  of  March  that  he  had  occa- 
sion to  make  another  elaborate  and  important 
speech.  At  that  time  Mr.  Clay  took  up  the  bill 
for  laying  certain  protective  duties  and  advocated 
it  strenuously  as  part  of  a general  and  steady  pol- 
icy which  he  then  christened  with  the  name  of 
“ the  American  system.”  Against  this  bill,  known 
as  the  tariff  of  1824,  Mr.  Webster  made,  as  Mr. 
Adams  wrote  in  his  diary  at  the  time,  “ an  able 
and  powerful  speech,”  which  can  be  more  properly 
considered  when  we  come  to  his  change  of  position 
on  this  question  a few  years  later. 

As  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  the 
affairs  of  the  national  courts  were  his  particular 
care.  Western  expansion  demanded  an  increased 
number  of  judges  for  the  circuits,  but,  unfortu- 
nately, decisions  in  certain  recent  cases  had  of- 
fended the  sensibilities  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky, 
and  there  was  a renewal  of  the  old  Jeffersonian 
efforts  to  limit  the  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  Instead  of  being  able  to  improve,  he  was 
obliged  to  defend  the  court,  and  this  he  did  suc- 
cessfully, defeating  all  attempts  to  curtail  its  power 
by  alterations  of  the  act  of  1789.  These  duties 
and  that  of  investigating  the  charges  brought  by 
Ninian  Edwards  against  Mr.  Crawford,  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  made  the  session  an  un- 
usually laborious  one,  and  detained  Mr.  Webster 
in  Washington  until  midsummer. 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


137 


The  short  session  of  the  next  winter  was  of 
course  marked  by  the  excitement  attendant  upon 
the  settlement  of  the  presidential  election  which 
resulted  in  the  choice  of  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams 
by  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  intense 
agitation  in  political  circles  did  not,  however,  pre- 
vent Mr.  Webster  from  delivering  one  very  im- 
portant speech,  nor  from  carrying  through  success- 
fully one  of  the  most  important  and  practically 
useful  measures  of  his  legislative  career.  The 
speech  was  delivered  in  the  debate  on  the  bill  for 
continuing  the  national  Cumberland  road.  Mr. 
Webster  had  already,  many  years  before,  defined 
his  position  on  the  constitutional  question  involved 
in  internal  improvements.  He  now,  in  response 
to  Mr.  McDuffie  of  South  Carolina,  who  de- 
nounced the  measure  as  partial  and  sectional,  not 
merely  defended  the  principle  of  internal  improve- 
ments, but  declared  that  it  was  a policy  to  be 
pursued  only  with  the  purest  national  feeling.  It 
was  not  the  business  of  Congress,  he  said,  to  legis- 
late for  this  State  or  that,  or  to  balance  local  in- 
terests, and  because  they  helped  one  region  to  help 
another,  but  to  act  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  States 
united,  and  in  making  improvements  to  be  guided 
only  by  their  necessity.  He  showed  that  these 
roads  would  open  up  the  West  to  settlement,  and 
incidentally  defended  the  policy  of  selling  the 
public  lands  at  a low  price  as  an  encouragement 
to  emigration,  telling  his  Southern  friends  very 


138 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


plainly  that  they  could  not  expect  to  coerce  the 
course  of  population  in  favor  of  their  own  section. 
The  whole  speech  was  conceived  in  the  broadest 
and  wisest  spirit,  and  marks  another  step  in  the 
development  of  Mr.  Webster  as  a national  states- 
man. It  increased  his  reputation,  and  brought  to 
him  a great  accession  of  popularity  in  the  West. 

The  measure  which  he  carried  through  was  the 
famous  “ Crimes  Act,”  perhaps  the  best  monu- 
ment that  there  is  of  his  legislative  and  construc- 
tive ability.  The  criminal  law  of  the  United 
States  had  scarcely  been  touched  since  the  days  of 
the  first  Congress,  and  was  very  defective  and  un- 
satisfactory. Mr.  Webster’s  first  task,  in  which 
he  received  most  essential  and  valuable  though 
unacknowledged  assistance  from  Judge  Story,  was 
to  codify  and  digest  the  whole  body  of  criminal 
law.  This  done,  the  hardly  less  difficult  under- 
taking followed  of  carrying  the  measure  through 
Congress.  In  the  latter,  Mr.  Webster,  by  his 
skill  in  debate  and  familiarity  with  his  subject, 
and  by  his  influence  in  the  House,  was  perfectly 
successful.  That  he  and  Judge  Story  did  their 
work  well  in  perfecting  the  bill  is  shown  by  the 
admirable  manner  in  which  the  Act  stood  the  test 
of  time  and  experience. 

When  the  new  Congress  came  together  in  1825, 
Mr.  Webster  at  once  turned  his  attention  to  the 
improvement  of  the  Judiciary,  which  he  had  been 
obliged  to  postpone  in  order  to  ward  off  the  attacks 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


139 


upon  the  court.  After  much,  deliberation  and 
thought,  aided  by  Judge  Story,  and  having  made 
some  concessions  to  his  committee,  he  brought 
in  a bill  increasing  the  Supreme  Court  judges 
to  ten,  making  ten  instead  of  seven  circuits,  and 
providing  that  six  judges  should  constitute  a quo- 
rum for  the  transaction  of  business.  Although 
not  a party  question,  the  measure  excited  much 
opposition,  and  was  more  than  a month  in  passing 
through  the  House.  Mr.  Webster  supported  it  at 
every  stage  with  great  ability,  and  his  two  most 
important  speeches,  which  are  in  their  way  mod- 
els for  the  treatment  of  such  a subject,  are  pre- 
served in  his  works.  The  bill  was  carried  by  his 
great  strength  in  debate  and  by  weight  of  forcible 
argument.  But  in  the  Senate,  where  it  was  de- 
prived of  the  guardianship  of  its  author,  it  hung 
along  in  uncertainty,  and  was  finally  lost  through 
the  apathy  or  opposition  of  those  very  Western 
members  for  whose  benefit  it  had  been  devised. 
Mr.  Webster  took  its  ultimate  defeat  very  coolly. 
The  Eastern  States  did  not  require  it,  and  were 
perfectly  contented  with  the  existing  arrange- 
ments, and  he  was  entirely  satisfied  with  the  as- 
surance that  the  best  lawyers  and  wisest  men  ap- 
proved the  principles  of  the  bill.  The  time  and 
thought  which  he  had  expended  were  not  wasted 
so  far  as  he  was  personally  concerned,  for  they 
served  to  enhance  his  influence  and  reputation 
both  as  a lawyer  and  statesman. 


340 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


This  session  brought  with  it  also  occasions  for 
debate  other  than  those  which  were  offered  by 
measures  of  purely  legislative  and  practical  inter- 
est. The  administration  of  Mr.  Adams  marks  the 
close  of  the  “era  of  good  feeling,”  as  it  was  called, 
and  sowed  the  germs  of  those  divisions  which  were 
soon  to  result  in  new  and  definite  party  combina- 
tions. Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay  represented  the 
conservative  and  General  Jackson  and  his  friends 
the  radical  or  democratic  elements  in  the  now  all- 
embracing  Republican  party.  It  was  inevitable 
that  Mr.  Webster  should  sympathize  with  the 
former,  and  it  was  equally  inevitable  that  in  doing 
so  he  should  become  the  leader  of  the  administra- 
tion forces  in  the  House,  where  “ his  great  and 
commanding  influence,”  to  quote  the  words  of  an 
opponent,  made  him  a host  himself.  The  desire 
of  Mr.  Adams  to  send  representatives  to  the  Pan- 
ama Congress,  a scheme  which  lay  very  near  his 
heart  and  to  which  Mr.  Clay  was  equally  at- 
tached, encountered  a bitter  and  factious  resist- 
ance in  the  Senate,  sufficient  to  deprive  the  meas- 
ure of  any  real  utility  by  delaying  its  passage.  In 
the  House  a resolution  was  introduced  declaring 
simply  that  it  was  expedient  to  appropriate  money 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  proposed  mission. 
The  opposition  at  once  undertook  by  amendments 
to  instruct  the  ministers,  and  generally  to  go  be- 
yond the  powers  of  the  House.  The  real  ground 
of  the  attack  was  slavery,  threatened,  as  was  sup- 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


141 


posed,  by  the  attitude  of  the  South  American  re- 
publics — a fact  which  no  one  understood  or  cared 
to  recognize.  Mr.  Webster  stood  forth  as  the 
champion  of  the  Executive.  In  an  elaborate 
speech  of  great  ability  he  denounced  the  uncon- 
stitutional attempt  to  interfere  with  the  prerog- 
ative of  the  President,  and  discussed  with  much 
effect  the  treaty^naking  power  assailed  on  another 
famous  occasion,  many  years  before,  by  the  South, 
and  defended  at  that  time  also  by  the  eloquence 
of  a representative  of  Massachusetts.  Mr.  Web- 
ster showed  the  nature  of  the  Panama  Congress, 
defended  its  objects  and  the  policy  of  the  admin- 
istration, and  made  a full  and  fine  exposition  of 
the  intent  of  the  “ Monroe  doctrine.”  The  speech 
was  air  important  and  effective  one.  It  exhibited 
in  an  exceptional  way  Mr.  Webster’s  capacity  for 
discussing  large  questions  of  public  and  constitu- 
tional law  and  foreign  policy,  and  was  of  essential 
service  to  the  cause  which  he  espoused.  It  was 
imbued,  too,  with  that  sentiment  of  national  unity 
which  occupied  a larger  space  in  his  thoughts  with 
each  succeeding  year,  until  it  finally  pervaded  his 
whole  career  as  a public  man. 

At  the  second  session  of  the  same  Congress, 
after  a vain  effort  to  confer  upon  the  country  the 
benefit  of  a national  bankrupt  law,  Mr.  Webster 
was  again  called  upon  to  defend  the  Executive  in  a 
much  more  heated  conflict  than  that  aroused  by 
the  Panama  resolution.  Georgia  was  engaged  in 


142 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


oppressing  and  robbing  the  Creek  Indians,  in  open 
contempt  of  the  treaties  and  obligations  of  the 
United  States.  Mr.  Adams  sent  in  a message  re- 
citing the  facts  and  hinting  pretty  plainly  that  he 
intended  to  carry  out  the  laws  by  force  unless 
Georgia  desisted.  The  message  was  received  with 
great  wrath  by  the  Southern  members.  They 
objected  to  any  reference  to  a committee,  and  Mr. 
Forsyth  of  Georgia  declared  the  whole  business  to 
be  “ base  and  infamous,”  while  a gentleman  from 
Mississippi  announced  that  Georgia  would  act  as 
she  pleased.  Mr.  Webster,  having  said  that  she 
would  do  so  at  her  peril,  was  savagely  attacked  as 
the  organ  of  the  administration,  daring  to  menace 
and  insult  a sovereign  State.  This  stirred  Mr. 
Webster,  although  slow  to  anger,  to  a determina- 
tion to  carry  through  the  reference  at  all  hazards. 
He  said : — 

“ He  would  tell  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  that  if 
there  were  rights  of  the  Indians  which  the  United 
States  were  bound  to  protect,  that  there  were  those  in 
the  House  and  in  the  country  who  would  take  their 
part.  If  we  have  bound  ourselves  by  any  treaty  to  do 
certain  things,  we  must  fulfil  such  obligation.  High 
words  will  not  terrify  us,  loud  declamation  will  not  deter 
us  from  the  discharge  of  that  duty.  In  my  own  course 
in  this  matter  I shall  not  be  dictated  to  by  any  State  or 
the  representative  of  any  State  on  this  floor.  I shall 
not  be  frightened  from  my  purpose  nor  will  I suffer 
harsh  language  to  produce  any  reaction  on  my  mind.  1 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


143 


will  examine  with  great  and  equal  care  all  the  rights  of 
both  parties.  ...  I have  made  these  few  remarks  to 
give  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  to  understand  that  it 
was  not  by  bold  denunciation  nor  by  bold  assumption 
that  the  members  of  this  House  are  to  be  influenced  in 
the  decision  of  high  public  concerns.” 

When  Mr.  Webster  was  thoroughly  roused  and 
indignant  there  was  a darkness  in  his  face  and  a 
gleam  of  dusky  light  in  his  deep-set  eyes  which 
were  not  altogether  pleasant  to  contemplate.  How 
well  Mr.  Forsyth  and  his  friends  bore  the  words 
and  look  of  Mr.  Webster  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing,  but  the  message  was  referred  to  a select 
committee  without  a division.  The  interest  to  us 
in  all  this  is  the  spirit  in  which  Mr.  Webster 
spoke.  He  loved  the  Union  as  intensely  then  as 
at  any  period  of  his  life,  but  he  was  still  far  dis- 
tant from  the  frame  of  mind  which  induced  him 
to  think  that  his  devotion  to  the  Union  would  be 
best  expressed  and  the  cause  of  the  Union  best 
served  by  mildness  toward  the  South  and  rebuke 
to  the  North.  He  believed  in  1826  that  dignified 
courage  and  firm  language  were  the  surest  means 
of  keeping  the  peace.  He  was  quite  right  then, 
and  he  would  have  been  always  right  if  he  had 
adhered  to  the  plain  words  and  determined  man- 
ner to  which  he  treated  Mr.  Forsyth  and  his 
friends. 

This  session  was  crowded  with  work  of  varying 
importance,  but  the  close  of  Mr.  Webster’s  career 


144 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


in  the  lower  House  was  near  at  hand.  The  fail- 
ing health  of  Mr.  E.  H.  Mills  made  it  certain  that 
Massachusetts  would  soon  have  a vacant  seat  in 
the  Senate,  and  every  one  turned  to  Mr.  Webster 
as  the  person  above  all  others-  entitled  to  this 
high  office.  He  himself  was  by  no  means  so  quick 
in  determining  to  accept  the  position.  He  would 
not  even  think  of  it  until  the  impossibility  of  Mr. 
Mills’s  return  was  assured,  and  then  he  had  to 
meet  the  opposition  of  the  administration  and  all 
its  friends,  who  regarded  with  alarm  the  prospect 
of  losing  such  a tower  of  strength  in  the  House. 
Mr.  Webster,  indeed,  felt  that  he  could  render 
the  best  service  in  the  lower  branch,  and  urged 
the  senatorship  upon  Governor  Lincoln,  who  was 
elected,  but  declined.  After  this  there  seemed  to 
be  no  escape  from  a manifest  destiny.  Despite 
the  opposition  of  his  friends  in  Washington,  and 
his  own  reluctance,  he  finally  accepted  the  office 
of  United  States  senator,  which  was  conferred 
upon  him  by  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  in 
June,  1827. 

In  tracing  the  labors  of  Mr.  Webster  during 
three  years  spent  in  the  lower  House,  no  allusion 
has  been  made  to  the  purely  political  side  of  his 
career  at  this  time,  nor  to  his  relations  with  the 
public  men  of  the  day.  The  period  was  important, 
generally  speaking,  because  it  showed  the  first 
signs  of  the  development  of  new  parties,  and  to 
Mr.  Webster  in  particular,  because  it  brought  him 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


145 


gradually  toward  the  political  and  party  position 
which  he  was  to  occupy  during  the  rest  of  his  life. 
When  he  took  his  seat  in  Congress,  in  the  autumn 
of  1823,  the  intrigues  for  the  presidential  succes- 
sion were  at  their  height.  Mr.  Webster  was  then 
strongly  inclined  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  was  sus- 
pected at  the  time  of  that  gentleman’s  visit  to 
Boston.  He  soon  became  convinced,  however, 
that  Mr.  Calhoun's  chances  of  success  were  slight, 
and  his  good  opinion  of  the  distinguished  South 
Carolinian  seems  also  to  have  declined.  It  was 
out  of  the  question  for  a man  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
temperament  and  habits  of  thought,  to  think  for 
a moment  of  supporting  Jackson,  a candidate  on 
the  ground  of  military  glory  and  unreflecting  pop- 
ular enthusiasm.  Mr.  Adams,  as  the  representative 
of  New  England,  and  as  a conservative  and  trained 
statesman,  was  the  natural  and  proper  candidate 
to  receive  the  aid  of  Mr.  Webster.  But  here 
party  feelings  and  traditions  stepped  in.  The 
Federalists  of  New  England  had  hated  Mr.  Adams 
with  the  peculiar  bitterness  which  always  grows 
out  of  domestic  quarrels,  whether  in  public  or 
private  life ; and  although  the  old  strife  had  sunk 
a little  out  of  sight,  it  had  never  been  healed. 
The  Federalist  leaders  in  Massachusetts  still  dis- 
liked and  distrusted  Mr.  Adams  with  an  intensity 
none  the  less  real  because  it  was  concealed.  In 
the  nature  of  things  Mr.  Webster  now  occupied  a 
position  of  political  independence ; but  he  had 
10 


146 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


been  a steady  party  man  when  bis  party  was  in 
existence,  and  he  was  still  a party  man  so  far  as 
the  old  Federalist  feelings  retained  vitality  and 
force.  He  bad,  moreover,  but  a slight  personal 
acquaintance  with  Mr.  Adams  and  no  very  cor- 
dial feeling  toward  him.  This  disposed  of  three 
presidential  candidates.  The  fourth  was  Mr. 
Clay,  and  it  is  not  very  clear  why  Mr.  Webster 
refused  an  alliance  in  this  quarter.  Mr.  Clay  had 
treated  him  with  consideration,  they  were  per- 
sonal friends,  their  opinions  were  not  dissimilar 
and  were  becoming  constantly  more  alike.  Pos- 
sibly there  was  an  instinctive  feeling  of  rivalry  on 
this  very  account.  At  all  events,  Mr.  Webster 
would  not  support  Clay.  Only  one  candidate  re- 
mained : Mr.  Crawford,  the  representative  of  all 
that  was  extreme  among  the  Republicans,  and,  in 
a party  sense,  most  odious  to  the  Federalists.  But 
it  was  a time  when  personal  factions  flourished 
rankly  in  the  absence  of  broad  differences  of  prin- 
ciple. Mr.  Crawford  was  bidding  furiously  for 
support  in  every  and  any  quarter,  and  to  Mr. 
Crawford,  accordingly,  Mr.  Webster  began  to  look 
as  a possible  leader  for  himself  and  his  friends. 
Just  how  far  Mr.  Webster  went  in  this  direction 
cannot  be  readily  or  surely  determined,  although 
we  get  some  light  on  the  subject  from  an  attack 
made  on  Mr.  Crawford  just  at  this  time.  Ninian 
Edwards,  recently  senator  from  Illinois,  had  a 
quarrel  with  Mr.  Crawford,  and  sent  in  a memo- 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


147 


rial  to  Congress  containing  charges  against  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  which  were  designed 
to  break  him  down  as  a candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency. Of  the  merits  of  this  quarrel  it  is  not 
very  easy  to  judge,  even  if  it  were  important. 
The  character  of  Edwards  was  none  of  the  best, 
and  Mr.  Crawford  had  unquestionably  made  a 
highly  unscrupulous  use,  politically,  of  his  posi- 
tion. The  members  of  the  administration,  al- 
though with  no  great  love  for  Edwards,  who  had 
been  appointed  Minister  to  Mexico,  were  dis- 
tinctly hostile  to  Mr.  Crawford,  and  refused  to 
attend  a dinner  from  which  Edwards  had  been 
expressly  excluded.  Mr.  Webster’s  part  in  the 
affair  came  from  his  being  on  the  committee 
charged  with  the  investigation  of  the  Edwards 
memorial.  Mr.  Adams,  who  was  of  course  ex- 
cited by  the  presidential  contest,  disposed  to  re- 
gard his  rivals  with  extreme  disfavor,  and  espe- 
cially and  justly  suspicious  of  Mr.  Crawford, 
speaks  of  Mr.  Webster’s  conduct  in  the  matter 
with  the  utmost  bitterness.  He  refers  to  it  again 
and  again  as  an  attempt  to  screen  Crawford  and 
break  down  Edwards,  and  denounces  Mr.  Web- 
ster as  false,  insidious,  and  treacherous.  Much  of 
this  may  be  credited  to  the  heated  animosities  of 
the  moment,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr. 
Webster  took  the  matter  into  his  own  hands  in 
the  committee,  and  made  every  effort  to  protect 
Mr.  Crawford,  in  whose  favor  he  also  spoke  in  the 


148 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


House.  It  is  likewise  certain  that  there  was  an 
attempt  to  bring  about  an  alliance  between  Craw- 
ford and  the  Federalists  of  the  North  and  East. 
The  effort  was  abortive,  and  even  before  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Edwards  business  Mr.  Webster 
avowed  that  he  should  take  but  little  part  in  the 
election,  and  that  his  only  purpose  was  to  secure 
the  best  terms  possible  for  the  Federalists,  and 
obtain  recognition  for  them  from  the  next  admin- 
istration. At  that  time  he  wished  Mr.  Mason  to 
be  attorney-general,  and  had  already  turned  his 
thoughts  toward  the  English  mission  for  himself. 

To  this  waiting  policy  he  adhered,  but  when 
the  popular  election  was  over,  and  the  final  decis- 
ion had  been  thrown  into  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, more  definite  action  became  necessary. 
From  the  questions  which  he  put  to  his  brother 
and  others  as  to  the  course  which  he  ought  to 
pursue  in  the  election  by  the  House,  it  is  obvious 
that  he  was  far  from  anxious  to  secure  the  choice 
of  Mr.  Adams,  and  was  weighing  carefully  other 
contingencies.  The  feeling  of  New  England  could 
not,  however,  be  mistaken.  Public  opinion  there 
demanded  that  the  members  of  the  House  should 
stand  by  the  New  England  candidate  to  the  last. 
To  this  sentiment  Mr.  Webster  submitted,  and 
soon  afterwai’ds  took  occasion  to  have  an  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Adams  in  order  to  make  the  best 
terms  possible  for  the  Federalists,  and  obtain  for 
them  suitable  recognition.  Mr.  Adams  assured 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


149 


Mr.  Webster  that  he  did  not  intend  to  proscribe 
any  section  or  any  party,  and  added  that  although 
lie  could  not  give  the  Federalists  representation 
in  the  cabinet,  he  should  give  them  one  of  the 
important  appointments.  Mr.  Webster  was  en- 
tirely satisfied  with  this  promise  and  with  all  that 
was  said  by  Mr.  Adams,  who,  as  everybody  knows, 
was  soon  after  elected  by  the  House  on  the  first 
ballot. 

Mr.  Adams  on  his  side  saw  plainly  the  necessity 
of  conciliating  Mr.  Webster,  whose  great  ability 
and  influence  he  thoroughly  understood.  He  told 
Mr.  Clay  that  be  bad  a high  opinion  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster, and  wished  to  win  his  support ; and  the  sav- 
age tone  displayed  in  regard  to  the  Edwards  affair 
now  disappears  from  the  Diary.  Mr.  Adams,  how- 
ever, although  he  knew,  as  he  says,  that  “ Web- 
ster was  panting  for  the  English  mission,”  and 
hinted  that  the  wish  might  be  gratified  hereafter? 
was  not  ready  to  go  so  far  at  the  moment,  and 
at  the  same  time  he  sought  to  dissuade  Mr.  Web- 
ster from  being  a candidate  for  the  speakership, 
for  which  in  truth  the  latter  had  no  inclination. 
Their  relations,  indeed,  soon  grew  very  pleasant. 
Mr.  Webster  naturally  became  the  leader  of  the 
administration  forces  in  the  House,  while  the 
President  on  his  side  sought  Mr.  Webster’s  ad- 
vice, admired  his  oration  on  Adams  and  Jefferson, 
dined  at  his  house,  and  lived  on  terms  of  friend- 
ship and  confidence  with  him.  It  is  to  be  feared, 


150 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


however,  that  all  this  was  merely  on  the  surface. 
Mr.  Adams  at  the  bottom  of  his  heart  never,  in 
reality,  relaxed  in  his  belief  that  Mr.  Webster 
was  morally  unsound.  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  other 
hand,  whose  Federalist  opposition  to  Mr.  Adams 
had  only  been  temporarily  allayed,  was  not  long 
in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  his  services,  if 
appreciated,  were  not  properly  recognized  by  the 
administration.  There  was  a good  deal  of  justice 
in  this  view.  The  English  mission  never  came, 
no  help  Was  to  be  obtained  for  Mr.  Mason’s  elec- 
tion as  senator  from  New  Hampshire,  the  speaker- 
ship  was  to  be  refused  in  order  to  promote  har- 
mony and  strength  in  the  House.  To  all  this  Mr. 
Webster  submitted,  and  fought  the  battles  of  the 
administration  in  debate  as  no  one  else  could  have 
done.  Nevertheless,  all  men  like  recognition,  and 
Mr.  Webster  would  have  preferred  something  more 
solid  than  words  and  confidence  or  the  triumph  of 
a common  cause.  When  the  Massachusetts  sen- 
atorship  was  in  question  Mr.  Adams  urged  the 
election  of  Governor  Lincoln,  and  objected  on  the 
most  flattering  grounds  to  Mr.  Webster’s  with- 
drawal from  the  House.  It  is  not  a too  violent 
conjecture  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Webster’s  final  ac- 
ceptance of  a seat  in  the  Senate  was  due  in  large 
measure  to  a feeling  that  he  had  sacrificed  enough 
for  the  administration.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  coolness  grew  between  the  President  and  the 
Senator,  and  that  the  appointment  to  England,  if 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


151 


still  desired,  never  was  made,  so  that  when  the 
next  election  came  on  Mr.  Webster  was  inactive, 
and,  despite  his  hostility  to  Jackson,  viewed  the 
overthrow  of  Mr.  Adams  with  a good  deal  of  in- 
difference and  some  satisfaction.  It  is  none  the 
less  true,  however,  that  during  these  years  when 
the  first  foundations  of  the  future  Whig  party 
were  laid,  Mr.  Webster  formed  the  political  affilia- 
tions which  were  to  last  through  life.  He  in- 
evitably found  himself  associated  with  Clay  and 
Adams,  and  opposed  to  Jackson,  Benton,  and  Van 
Buren,  while  at  the  same  time  he  and  Calhoun 
were  fast  drifting  apart.  He  had  no  specially 
cordial  feeling  to  his  new  associates ; but  they 
were  at  the  head  of  the  conservative  elements  of 
the  country,  they  were  nationalists  in  policy,  and 
they  favored  the  views  which  were  most  affected 
in  New  England.  As  a conservative  and  nation- 
alist by  nature  and  education,  and  as  the  great  New 
England  leader,  Mr.  Webster  could  not  avoid  be- 
coming the  parliamentai’y  chief  of  Mr.  Adams’s 
administration,  and  thus  paved  the  way  for  leader- 
ship in  the  Whig  party  of  the  future. 

In  narrating  the  history  of  these  years,  I have 
confined  myself  to  Mr.  Webster’s  public  services 
and  political  course.  But  it  was  a period  in  his 
career  which  was  crowded  with  work  and  achieve- 
ment, bringing  fresh  fame  and  increased  reputa- 
tion, and  also  with  domestic  events  both  of  joy  and 
sorrow.  Mr.  Webster  steadily  pursued  the  prac- 


152 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tice  of  the  law,  and  was  constantly  engaged  in  the 
Supreme  Courts  To  these  years  belong  many  of 
his  great  arguments,  and  also  the  prosecution  of  the 
Spanish  claims,  a task  at  once  laborious  and  prof- 
itable. In  the  summer  of  1821  Mr.  Webster  first 
saw  Marshfield,  his  future  home,  and  in  the  autumn 
of  the  same  year  he  visited  Monticello,  where  he 
had  a long  interview  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  of  whom 
he  has  left  a most  interesting  description.  During 
the  winter  he  formed  the  acquaintance  and  lived 
much  in  the  society  of  some  well-known  English- 
men then  travelling  in  this  country.  This  party 
consisted  of  the  Earl  of  Derby,  then  Mr.  Stanley, 
Lord  Wharncliffe,  then  Mr.  Stuai’t  Wortley;  Lord 
Taunton,  then  Mr.  Labouchere,  and  Mr.  Denison, 
afterwards  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
With  Mr.  Denison  this  acquaintance  was  the 
foundation  of  a lasting  and  intimate  friendship 
maintained  by  correspondence.  In  June,  1825, 
came  the  splendid  oration  at  Bunker  Hill,  and 
then  a visit  to  Niagara,  which,  of  course,  appealed 
strongly  to  Mr.  Webster.  His  account  of  it,  how- 
ever, although  indicative  of  a deep  mental  im- 
pression, shows  that  his  power  of  describing  na- 
ture fell  far  short  of  his  wonderful  talent  for  pic- 
turing human  passions  and  action.  The  next 
vacation  brought  the  eulogy  on  Adams  and  Jeffer- 
son, when  perhaps  Mr.  Webster  may  be  consid- 
ered to  have  been  in  his  highest  physical  and 
intellectual  perfection.  Such  at  least  was  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Ticknor,  who  says  : — 


RETURN  TO  CONGRESS. 


153 


“ He  was  in  the  perfection  of  manly  beauty  and 
strength ; his  form  filled  out  to  its  finest  proportions, 
and  his  bearing,  as  he  stood  before  the  vast  multitude, 
that  of  absolute  dignity  and  power.  His  manner  of 
speaking  was  deliberate  and  commanding.  I never 
heard  him  when  his  manner  was  so  grand  and  appropri- 
ate ; . . . when  he  ended  the  minds  of  men  were 
wrought  up  to  an  uncontrollable  excitement,  and  then 
followed  three  tremendous  cheers,  inappropriate  indeed, 
but  as  inevitable  as  any  other  great  movement  of  na- 
ture.” 

He  liad  held  the  vast  audience  mute  for  over 
two  hours,  as  John  Quincy  Adams  said  in  his  di- 
ary, and  finally  their  excited  feelings  found  vent  in 
cheers.  He  spoke  greatly  because  he  felt  greatly. 
His  emotions,  his  imagination,  his  entire  orator- 
ical temperament  were  then  full  of  quick  sensi- 
bility. When  he  finished  writing  the  imaginary 
speech  of  John  Adams  in  the  quiet  of  his  library 
and  the  silence  of  the  morning  hour,  his  eyes  were 
wet  with  tears. 

A year  passed  by  after  this  splendid  display  of 
eloquence,  and  then  the  second  congressional  pe- 
riod, which  had  been  so  full  of  work  and  intellect- 
ual activity  and  well-earned  distinction,  closed, 
and  he  entered  upon  that  broader  field  which 
opened  to  him  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
where  his  greatest  triumphs  were  still  to  be 
achieved. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828  AND  THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 

The  new  dignity  conferred  on  Mr.  Webster  by 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  had  hardly  been  as- 
sumed when  he  was  called  upon  to  encounter  a 
trial  which  must  have  made  all  his  honors  seem 
poor  indeed.  He  had  scarcely  taken  his  seat  when 
he  was  obliged  to  return  to  New  York,  where  fail- 
ing health  had  arrested  Mrs.  Webster’s  journey  to 
the  capital,  and  where,  after  much  suffering,  she 
died,  January  21,  1828.  The  blow  fell  with  ter- 
rible severity  upon  her  husband.  He  had  many 
sorrows  to  bear  during  his  life,  but  this  surpassed 
all  others.  His  wife  was  the  love  of  his  youth, 
the  mother  of  his  children,  a lovely  woman  whose 
strong  but  gentle  influence  for  good  was  now  lost 
to  him  irreparably.  In  his  last  days  his  thoughts 
reverted  to  her,  and  as  he  followed  her  body  to  the 
grave,  on  foot  in  th6  wet  and  cold,  and  leading  his 
children  by  the  hand,  it  must  indeed  have  seemed 
as  if  the  wine  of  life  had  been  drunk  and  only  the 
lees  remained.  He  was  excessively  pale,  and  to 
those  who  looked  upon  him  seemed  crushed  and 
heart-broken. 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


155 


The  only  relief  was  to  return  to  his  work  and 
to  the  excitement  of  public  affairs  ; but  the  cloud 
hung  over  him  long  after  he  was  once  more  in  his 
place  in  the  Senate.  Death  had  made  a wound  in 
his  life  which  time  healed  but  of  which  the  scar 
remained.  Whatever  were  Mr.  Webster’s  faults, 
his  affection  for  those  nearest  to  him,  and  espe- 
cially for  the  wife  of  his  youth,  was  deep  and 
strong. 

“The  very  first  day  of  Mr.  Webster’s  arrival  and 
taking  his  seat  in  the  Senate,”  Judge  Story  writes  to  Mr. 
Ticknor,  “ there  was  a process  bill  on  its  third  reading, 
filled,  as  he  thought,  with  inconvenient  and  mischievous 
provisions.  He  made,  in  a modest  undertone,  some  in- 
quiries, and,  upon  an  answer  being  given,  he  expressed  in 
a few  words  his  doubts  and  fears.  Immediately  Mr. 
Tazewell  from  Virginia  broke  out  upon  him  in  a speech 
of  two  hours.  Mr.  Webster  then  moved  an  adjournment, 
and  on  the  next  day  delivered  a most  masterly  speech 
in  reply,  expounding  the  whole  operation  of  the  intended 
act  in  the  clearest  manner,  so  that  a recommitment  was 
carried  almost  without  an  effort.  It  was  a triumph  of 
the  most  gratifying  nature,  and  taught  his  opponents  the 
danger  of  provoking  a trial  of  his  strength,  even  when 
he  was  overwhelmed  by  calamity.  In  the  labors  of  the 
court  he  has  found  it  difficult  to  work  himself  up  to 
high  efforts ; but  occasionally  he  comes  out  with  all  his 
powers,  and  when  he  does,  it  is  sure  to  attract  a brilliant 
audience.” 

It  would  be  impossible  to  give  a better  picture 
than  that  presented  by  Judge  Story  of  Mr.  Web- 


156 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ster’s  appearance  and  conduct  in  the  month  im- 
mediately following  the  death  of  his  wife.  We 
can  see  how  his  talents,  excited  by  the  conflicts 
of  the  Senate  and  the  court,  struggled,  sometimes 
successfully,  sometimes  in  vain,  with  the  sense  of 
loss  and  sorrow  which  oppressed  him. 

He  did  not  again  come  prominently  forward  in 
the  Senate  until  the  end  of  April,  when  he  roused 
himself  to  prevent  injustice.  The  bill  for  the 
relief  of  the  surviving  officers  of  the  Revolution 
seemed  on  the  point  of  being  lost.  The  object  of 
the  measure  appealed  to  Mr.  Webster’s  love  for 
the  past,  to  his  imagination,  and  his  patriotism. 
He  entered  into  the  debate,  delivered  the  fine 
and  dignified  speech  which  is  preserved  in  liis 
works,  and  saved  the  bill.  < 

A fortnight  after  this  he  made  his  famous 
speech  on  the  tariff  of  1828,  a bill  making  ex- 
tensive changes  in  the  rates  of  duties  imposed  in 
1816  and  1824.  This  speech  marks  an  important 
change  in  Mr.  Webster’s  views  and  in  his  course 
as  a statesman.  He  now  gave  up  his  position  as 
the  ablest  opponent  in  the  country  of  the  protec- 
tive policy,  and  went  over  to  the  support  of  the 
tariff  and  the  “American  system”  of  Mr.  Clay. 
This  change,  in  every  way  of  great  importance, 
subjected  Mr.  Webster  to  severe  criticism  both 
then  and  subsequently.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary 
to  examine  briefly  his  previous  utterances  on  this 
question  in  order  to  reach  a correct  understanding 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


157 


of  his  motives  in  taking  this  important  step  and 
to  appreciate  his  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  a pol- 
icy with  which,  after  the  year  1828,  he  was  so 
closely  identified. 

When  Mr.  Webster  first  entered  Congress  he 
was  a thorough-going  Federalist.  But  the  Fed- 
eralists of  New  England  differed  from  their  great 
chief,  Alexander  Hamilton,  on  the  question  of  a 
protective  policy.  Hamilton,  in  his  report  on 
manufactures,  advocated  with  consummate  ability 
the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  protection  for 
nascent  industries  as  an  integral  and  essential  part 
of  a true  national  policy,  and  urged  it  on  its  own 
merits,  without  any  reference  to  its  being  incident 
to  revenue.  The  New  England  Federalists,  on  the 
other  hand,  coming  from  exclusively  commercial 
communities,  were  in  principle  free-traders.  They 
regarded  with  disfavor  the  doctrine  that  protec- 
tion was  a good  thing  in  itself,  and  desired  it,  if  at 
all,  only  in  the  most  limited  form  and  purely  as  an 
incident  to  raising  revenue.  With  these  opinions 
Mr.  Webster  was  in  full  sympathy,  and  he  took 
occasion  when  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  1814,  spoke  in 
favor  of  the  existing  double  duties  as  a protective 
measure,  and  also  in  favor  of  manufactures,  during 
the  debate  on  the  repeal  of  the  embargo,  to  define 
his  position  on  this  important  question.  A few 
brief  extracts  will  show  his  views,  which  were  ex- 
pressed very  clearly  and  with  his  wonted  ability 
and  force. 


158 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


“ I consider,”  he  said,  “ the  imposition  of  double  du- 
ties as  a mere  financial  measure.  Its  great  object  was 
to  raise  revenue,  not  to  foster  manufactures.  ...  I do 
not  say  the  double  duties  ought  to  be  continued.  I 
think  they  ought  not.  But  what  I particularly  object 
to  is  the  holding  out  of  delusive  expectations  to  those 
concerned  in  manufactures.  ...  In  respect  to  manufac- 
tures it  is  necessary  to  speak  with  some  precision.  I 
am  not,  generally  speaking,  their  enemy.  I am  their 
friend ; but  I am  not  for  rearing  them  or  any  other  in- 
terest in  hot-beds.  I would  not  legislate  precipitately, 
even  in  favor  of  them ; above  all,  I would  not  profess 
intentions  in  relation  to  them  which  I did  not  purpose  to 
execute.  I feel  no  desire  to  push  capital  into  extensive 
manufactures  faster  than  the  general  progress  of  our 
wealth  and  population  propels  it. 

“ I am  not  in  haste  to  see  Sheffields  and  Birminghams 
in  America.  Until  the  population  of  the  country  shall 
be  greater  in  proportion  to  its  extent,  such  establish- 
ments would  be  impracticable  if  attempted,  and  if  prac- 
ticable they  would  be  unwise.” 

He  then  pointed  out  the  inferiority  and  the 
perils  of  manufactures  as  an  occupatioxr  in  com- 
parison with  agriculture,  and  concluded  as  fol- 
lows : — 

“ I am  not  anxious  to  accelerate  the  approach  of  the 
period  when  the  great  mass  of  American  labor  shall  not 
find  its  employment  in  the  field  ; when  the  young  men 
of  the  country  shall  be  obliged  to  shut  their  eyes  upon 
external  nature,  upon  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and 
immerse  themselves  in  close  and  unwholesome  work- 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


159 


shops  ; when  they  shall  be  obliged  to  shut  their  ears  to 
the  bieatings  of  their  own  flocks  upon  their  own  hills, 
and  to  the  voice  of  the  lark  that  cheers  them  at  the 
plough,  that  they  may  open  them  in  dust  and  smoke  and 
steam  to  the  perpetual  whirl  of  spools  and  spindles,  and 
the  grating  of  rasps  and  saws.  I have  made  these  re- 
marks, sir,  not  because  I perceive  any  immediate  danger 
of  carrying  our  manufactures  to  an  extensive  height,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  guarding  and  limiting  my  opinions, 
and  of  checking,  perhaps,  a little  the  high-wrought 
hopes  of  some  who  seem  to  look  to  our  present  infant 
establishments  for  ‘ more  than  their  nature  or  their  state 
can  bear.’ 

“ It  is  the  true  policy  of  government  to  suffer  the  dif- 
ferent pursuits  of  society  to  take  their  own  course,  and 
not  to  give  excessive  bounties  or  encouragements  to  one  over 
another.  This,  also,  is  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  has  not,  in  my  opinion,  conferred  on  the  govern- 
ment the  power  of  changing  the  occupations  of  the  people 
of  different  States  and  sections,  and  of  forcing  them  into 
other  employments.  It  cannot  prohibit  commerce  any 
more  than  agriculture,  nor  manufactures  any  more  than 
commerce.  It  owes  protection  to  all.” 

The  sentences  in  italics  constitute  a pretty 
strong  and  explicit  statement  of  the  laissez  faire 
doctrine,  and  it  will  be  observed  that  the  tone  of 
all  the  extracts  is  favorable  to  free  trade  and  hos- 
tile to  protection  and  even  to  manufactures  in  a 
marked  degree.  We  see,  also,  that  Mr.  Webster, 
with  his  usual  penetration  and  justice  of  percep- 
tion, saw  very  clearly  that  uniformity  and  steadi- 


160 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ness  of  policy  were  more  essential  than  even  the 
policy  itself,  and  in  his  opinion  were  most  likely 
to  be  attained  by  refraining  from  protection  as 
much  as  possible. 

When  the  tariff  of  1816  was  under  discussion 
Mr.  Webster  made  no  elaborate  speech  against  it, 
probably  feeling  that  it  was  hopeless  to  attempt 
to  defeat  the  measure  as  a whole,  but  he  devoted 
himself  with  almost  complete  success  to  the  task 
of  reducing  the  proposed  duties  and  to  securing 
modifications  of  various  portions  of  the  bill. 

In  1820,  when  the  tariff  recommended  at  the 
previous  session  was  about  to  come  befoi'e  Con- 
gress, Mr.  Webster  was  not  in  public  life.  He 
attended,  however,  a meeting  of  merchants  and 
agriculturists,  held  in  Faneuil  Hall  in  the  summer 
of  that  year,  to  protest  against  the  proposed  tariff, 
and  he  spoke  strongly  in  favor  of  the  free  trade 
resolutions  which  were  then  adopted.  He  began 
by  saying  that  he  was  a friend  to  manufactures, 
but  not  to  the  tariff,  which  he  considered  as  most 
injurious  to  the  country. 

“ He  certainly  thought  it  might  be  doubted  whether 
Congress  would  not  be  acting  somewhat  against  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  the  Constitution  in  exercising  a power 
to  control  essentially  the  pursuits  and  occupations  of  in- 
dividuals in  their  private  concerns — a power  to  force 
great  and  sudden  changes  both  of  occupation  and  prop- 
erty upon  individuals,  not  as  incidental  to  the  exercise  of 
any  other  power , hut  as  a substantial  and  direct  power” 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


161 


It  will  be  observed  that  he  objects  to  the  con- 
stitutionality of  protection  as  a “ direct  power,” 
and  in  the  speech  of  1814,  in  the  portion  quoted 
in  italics,  he  declared  against  any  general'  power 
still  more  forcibly  and  broadly.  It  is  an  impossi- 
ble piece  of  subtlety  and  refining,  therefore,  to 
argue  that  Mr.  Webster  always  held  consistently 
to  his  views  as  to  the  limitations  of  the  revenue 
power  as  a source  of  protection,  and  that  he  put 
protection  in  1828,  and  subsequently  sustained  it 
after  his  change  of  position,  on  new  and  general 
constitutional  grounds.  In  the  speeches  of  1814 
and  1820  he  declared  expressly  against  the  doc- 
trine of  a general  power  of  protection,  saying,  in 
the  latter  instance : — 

“It  would  hardly  be  contended  that  Congress  pos- 
sessed that  sort  of  general  power  by  which  it  might  de- 
clare that  particular  occupations  should  be  pursued  in 
society  and  that  others  should  not.  If  such  power 
belonged  to  any  government  in  this  country , it  certainly 
did  not  belong  to  the  general  government .” 

Mr.  Webster  took  the  New  England  position 
that  there  was  no  general  power,  and  having  so 
declared  in  this  speech  of  1820,  he  then  went  on 
to  show  that  protection  could  only  come  as  inci- 
dental to  revenue,  and  that,  even  in  this  way,  it 
became  unconstitutional  when  the  incident  was 
turned  into  the  principle  and  when  protection  and 
not  revenue  was  the  object  of  the  duties.  After 
arguing  this  point,  he  proceeded  to  discuss  the 
ll 


162 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


general  expediency  of  protection,  holding  it  up  as 
a thoroughly  mistaken  policy,  a failure  in  England 
which  that  country  would  gladly  be  rid  of,  and 
defending  commerce  as  the  truest  and  best  sup- 
port of  the  government  and  of  general  prosperity. 
He  took  up  next  the  immediate  effects  of  the  pro- 
posed tariff,  and,  premising  that  it  would  confess- 
edly cause  a diminution  of  the  revenue,  said  : — 

“ In  truth,  every  man  in  the  community  not  immedi- 
ately benefited  by  the  new  duties  would  suffer  a double 
loss.  In  the  first  place,  by  shutting  out  the  former  com- 
modity, the  price  of  the  domestic  manufacture  would  be 
raised.  The  consumer,  therefore,  must  pay  more  for  it, 
and  insomuch  as  government  will  have  lost  the  duty  on 
the  imported  article,  a tax  equal  to  that  duty  must  be 
paid  to  the  government.  The  real  amount,  then,  of  this 
bounty  on  a given  article  will  be  precisely  the  amount 
of  the  present  duty  added  to  the  amount  of  the  pro- 
posed duty.” 

He  then  went  on  to  show  the  injustice  which 
would  be  done  to  all  manufacturers  of  unprotected 
articles,  and  ridiculed  the  idea  of  the  connection 
between  home  industries  artificially  developed  and 
national  independence.  He  concluded  by  assail- 
ing manufacturing  as  an  occupation,  attacking  it 
as  a means  of  making  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor 
poorer;  of  injuring  business  by  concentrating 
capital  in  the  hands  of  a few  who  obtained  control 
of  the  corporations ; of  distributing  capital  less 
widely  than  commerce ; of  breeding  up  a danger- 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


168 


ous  and  undesirable  population  ; and  of  leading  to 
the  hurtful  employment  of  women  and  children. 
The  meeting,  the  resolutions,  and  the  speech  were 
all  in  t?ie  interests  of  commerce  and  free  trade, 
and  Mr.  Webster’s  doctrines  were  on  the  most 
approved  pattern  of  New  England  Federalism, 
which,  professing  a mild  friendship  for  manufac- 
tures and  unwillingly  conceding  the  minimum  of 
protection  solely  as  an  incident  to  revenue,  was, 
at  bottom,  thoroughly  hostile  to  both.  In  1820 
Mr.  Webster  stood  forth,  both  politically  and  con- 
stitutionally, as  a free-trader,  moderate  but  at  the 
same  time  decided  in  his  opinions. 

When  the  tariff  of  1824  was  brought  before 
Congress  and  advocated  with  great  zeal  by  Mr. 
Clay,  who  upheld  it  as  the  “ American  system,” 
Mr.  Webster  opposed  the  policy  in  the  fullest  and 
most  elaborate  speech  he  had  yet  made  on  the 
subject.  A distinguished  American  economist, 
Mr.  Edward  Atkinson,  has  described  this  speech 
of  1824  briefly  and  exactly  in  the  following 
words : — 

“It  contains  a refutation  of  the  exploded  theory  of 
the  balance  of  trade,  of  the  fallacy  with  regard  to  the 
exportation  of  specie,  and  of  the  claim  that  the  policy 
of  protection  is  distinctively  the  American  policy  which 
can  never  be  improved  upon,  and  it  indicates  how  thor- 
oughly his  judgment  approved  and  his  better  nature 
sympathized  with  the  movement  towards  enlightened  and 
liberal  commercial  legislation,  then  already  commenced 
in  Great  Britain.” 


164 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


This  speech  was  in  truth  one  of  great  ability, 
showing  a remarkable  capacity  for  questions  of 
political  economy,  and  opening  with  an  admirable 
discussion  of  the  currency  and  of  finance,  in  regard 
to  which  Mr.  Webster  always  held  and  advanced 
the  soundest,  most  scientific,  and  most  enlightened 
views.  Now,  as  in  1820,  he  stood  forth  as  the 
especial  champion  of  commerce,  which,  as  he  said, 
had  thriven  without  protection,  had  brought  reve- 
nue to  the  government  and  wealth  to  the  country, 
and  would  be  grievously  injured  by  the  proposed 
tariff.  He  made  his  principal  objection  to  the 
protection  policy  on  the  ground  of  favoritism  to 
some  interests  at  the  expense  of  others  when  all 
were  entitled  to  equal  consideration.  Of  England 
he  said,  “ Because  a thing  has  been  wrongly  done, 
it  does  not  follow  that  it  can  be  undone  ; and  this 
is  the  reason,  as  I understand  it,  for  which  exclu- 
sion, prohibition,  and  monopoly  are  suffered  to  re* 
main  in  any  degree  in  the  English  system.”  After 
examining  at  length  the  different  varieties  of  pro- 
tection, and  displaying  very  thoroughly  the  state 
of  current  English  opinion,  he  defined  the  position 
which  he,  in  common  with  the  Federalists  of  New 
England,  then  as  always  adhered  to  in  the  follow- 
ing words : — 

“ Protection,  when  carried  to  the  point  which  is  now 
recommended,  that  is,  to  entire  prohibition,  seems  to  me 
destructive  of  all  commercial  intercourse  between  na- 
tions. We  are  urged  to  adopt  the  system  on  general 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


165 


principles ; I do  not  admit  the  general  principle ; 
on  the  contrary,  I think  freedom  of  trade  the  general 
principle,  and  restriction  the  exception.” 

He  pointed  out  that  the  proposed  protective 
policy  involved  a decline  of  commerce,  and  that 
steadiness  and  uniformity,  the  most  essential  req- 
uisites in  any  policy,  were  endangered.  He  then 
with  great  power  dealt  with  the  various  points 
summarized  by  Mr.  Atkinson,  and  concluded  with 
a detailed  and  learned  examination  of  the  various 
clauses  of  the  bill,  which  finally  passed  by  a small 
majority  and  became  law. 

In  1828  came  another  tariff  bill,  so  bad  and  so 
extreme  in  many  respects  that  it  was  called  the 
“ bill  of  abominations.”  It  originated  in  the  agi- 
tation of  the  woollen  manufacturers  which  had 
started  the  year  before,  and  for  this  bill  Mr.  Web- 
ster spoke  and  voted.  He  changed  his  ground  on 
this  important  question  absolutely  and  entirely, 
and  made  no  pretence  of  doing  anything  else. 
The  speech  which  he  made  on  this  occasion  is  a 
celebrated  one,  but  it  is  so  solely  on  account  of 
the  startling  change  of  position  which  it  an- 
nounced. Mr.  Webster  has  been  attacked  and 
defended  for  his  action  at  this  time  with  great 
zeal,  and  all  the  constitutional  and  economic  argu- 
ments for  and  against  protection  are  continually 
brought  forward  in  this  connection.  From  the 
tone  of  the  discussion,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  many 
of  those  who  are  interested  in  the  question  have 


166 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


not  taken  the  trouble  to  read  what  he  said.  The 
speech  of  1828  is  by  no  means  equal  in  any  way 
to  its  predecessors  in  the  same  field.  It  is  brief 
and  simple  to  the  last  degree.  It  has  not  a shred 
of  constitutional  argument,  nor  does  it  enter  at 
all  into  a discussion  of  general  principles.  It 
makes  but  one  point,  and  treats  that  point  with 
great  force  as  the  only  one  to  be  made  under  the 
circumstances,  and  thereby  presents  the  single  and 
sufficient  reason  for  its  author’s  vote.  A few  lines 
from  the  speech  give  the  marrow  of  the  whole 
matter.  Mr.  W ebster  said  : — 

“ New  England,  sir,  has  not  been  a leader  in  this 
policy.  On  the  contrary,  she  held  back  herself  and  tried 
to  hold  others  back  from  it,  from  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  to  1824.  Up  to  1824  she  was  accused  of 
sinister  and  selfish  designs,  because  she  discountenanced 
the  progress  of  this  policy.  . . . Under  this  angry  denun- 
ciation against  her  the  act  of  1824  passed.  Now  the 
imputation  is  of  a precisely  opposite  character.  . . . 
Both  charges,  sir,  are  equally  without  the  slightest 
foundation.  The  opinion  of  New  England  up  to  1824 
was  founded  in  the  conviction  that,  on  the  whole,  it  was 
wisest  and  best,  both  for  herself  and  others,  that  manu- 
factures should  make  haste  slowly.  . . . When,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  late  war,  duties  were  doubled,  we 
were  told  that  we  should  find  a mitigation  of  the  weight 
of  taxation  in  the  new  aid  and  succor  which  would  be 
thus  afforded  to  our  own  manufacturing  labor.  Like 
arguments  were  urged,  and  prevailed,  but  not  by  the 
aid  of  New  England  votes,  when  the  tariff  was  after- 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


167 


wards  arranged  at  the  close  of  the  war  in  1816.  Fi- 
nally, after  a winter’s  deliberation,  the  act  of  1824  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  and 
settled  the  policy  of  the  country.  What,  then,  was 
New  England  to  do  ? . . . Was  she  to  hold  out  forever 
against  the  course  of  the  government,  and  see  herself 
losing  on  one  side  and  yet  make  no  effort  to  sustain 
herself  on  the  other  ? No,  sir.  Nothing  was  left  to 
New  England  but  to  conform  herself  to  the  will  of 
others.  Nothing  was  left  to  her  but  to  consider  that  the 
government  had  fixed  and  determined  its  own  policy  ; 
and  that  policy  was  protection.  ...  I believe,  sir,  al- 
most every  man  from  New  England  who  voted  against 
the  law  of  1824  declared  that  if,  notwithstanding  his 
opposition  to  that  law,  it  should  still  pass,  there  would 
be  no  alternative  but  to  consider  the  course  and  policy 
of  the  government  as  then  settled  and  fixed,  and  to  act 
accordingly.  The  law  did  pass  ; and  a vast  increase  of 
investment  in  manufacturing  establishments  was  the  con- 
sequence.” 

Opinion  in  New  England  changed  for  good 
and  sufficient  business  reasons,  and  Mr.  Web- 
ster changed  with  it.  Free  trade  had  commended 
itself  to  him  as  an  abstract  principle,  and  he  had 
sustained  and  defended  it  as  in  the  interest  of 
commercial  New  England.  But  when  the  weight 
of  interest  in  New  England  shifted  from  free  trade 
to  protection  Mr.  Webster  followed  it.  His  con- 
stituents were  by  no  means  unanimous  in  support 
of  the  tariff  in  1828,  but  the  majority  favored  it, 
and  Mr.  Webster  went  with  the  majority.  At  a 


168 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


public  dinner  given  to  him  in  Boston  at  the  close 
of  the  session,  he  explained  to  the  dissentient  mi- 
nority the  reasons  for  his  vote,  which  were  very 
simple.  He  thought  that  good  predominated  over 
evil  in  the  bill,  and  that  the  majority  throughout 
the  whole  State  of  which  he  was  the  representa- 
tive favored  the  tariff,  and  therefore  he  had  voted 
in  the  affirmative. 

Much  fault  has  been  found,  as  has  been  said, 
both  at  the  time  and  since,  with  Mr.  Webster’s 
change  of  position  on  this  question.  It  has  been 
held  up  as  a monument  of  inconsistencjq  and  as 
indicating  a total  absence  of  deep  conviction. 
That  Mr.  Webster  was,  in  a certain  sense,  incon- 
sistent is  beyond  doubt,  but  consistency  is  the  bug- 
bear of  small  minds,  as  well  as  a mark  of  strong 
characters,  while  its  reverse  is  often  the  proof  of 
wisdom.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  fairly 
argued  that,  holding  as  he  did  that  the  whole 
thing  was  purely  a business  question  to  be  decided 
according  to  circumstances,  his  course,  in  view  of 
the  policy  adopted  by  the  government,  was  at 
bottom  perfectly  consistent.  As  to  the  want  of 
deep  conviction,  Mr.  Webster’s  vote  on  this  ques- 
tion proves  nothing.  He  believed  in  free  trade  as 
an  abstract  general  principle,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  he  ever  abandoned  his  belief 
on  this  point.  But  he  had  too  clear  a mind  ever 
to  be  run  away  with  by  the  extreme  vagaries  of 
the  Manchester  school.  He  knew  that  there  was 


THE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


169 


no  morality,  no  immutable  right  and  wrong,  in 
an  impost  or  a free  list.  It  has  been  the  fash- 
ion to  refer  to  Mr.  Disraeli’s  declaration  that  free 
trade  was  “ a mere  question  of  expediency  ” as  a 
proof  of  that  gentleman’s  cynical  indifference  to 
moral  principles.  That  the  late  Earl  of  Beacons- 
field  had  no  deep  convictions  on  any  subject  may 
be  readily  admitted,  but  in  this  instance  he  uttered 
a very  plain  and  simple  truth,  which  all  the  talk 
in  the  world  about  free  trade  as  the  harbinger  and 
foundation  of  universal  peace  on  earth  cannot  dis- 
guise. 

Mr.  Webster  never  at  any  time  treated  the 
question  of  free  trade  or  protection  as  anything 
but  one  of  expediency.  Under  the  lead  of  Mr. 
Calhoun,  in  1816,  the  South  and  West  initiated  a 
protective  policy,  and  after  twelve  years  it  had 
become  firmly  established  and  New  England  had 
adapted  herself  to  it.  Mr.  Webster,  as  a New 
England  representative,  resisted  the  protective 
policy  at  the  outset  as  against  her  interests,  but 
when  she  had  conformed  to  the  new  conditions,  he 
came  over  to  its  support  simply  on  the  ground  of 
expediency.  He  rested  the  defence  of  his  new 
position  upon  the  doctrine  which  he  had  always 
consistently  preached,  that  uniformity  and  perma- 
nency were  the  essential  and  sound  conditions  of 
any  policy,  whether  of  free  trade  or  protection. 
In  1828,  neither  at  the  dinner  in  Boston  nor  in 
the  Senate,  did  he  enter  into  any  discussion  of 


170 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


general  principles  or  constitutional  theories.  He 
merely  said,  in  substance,  You  have  chosen  to 
make  protection  necessary  to  New  England,  and 
therefore  I am  now  forced  to  vote  for  it.  This 
was  the  position  which  he  continued  to  hold  to 
the  end  of  his  life.  As  he  was  called  upon,  year 
after  year,  to  defend  protection,  and  as  New  Eng- 
land became  more  and  more  wedded  to  the  tariff, 
he  elaborated  his  arguments  on  many  points,  but 
the  essence  of  all  he  said  afterwards  is  to  be  found 
in  the  speech  of  1828.  On  the  constitutional 
point  he  was  obliged  to  make  a more  violent 
change.  He  held,  of  course,  to  his  opinion  that, 
under  the  revenue  power,  protection  could  be  in- 
cidental only,  because  from  that  doctrine  there 
was  no  escape.  But  he  dropped  the  condemna- 
tion expressed  in  1814  and  the  doubts  uttered  in 
1820  as  to  the  theory  that  it  was  within  the  direct 
power  of  Congress  to  enact  a pi-otective  taiiff,  and 
assumed  that  they  had  this  right  as  one  of  the 
general  powers  in  the  Constitution,  or  that  at  all 
events  they  had  exercised  it,  and  that  therefore 
the  question  was  henceforward  to  be  considered 
as  res  adj udicata.  The  speech  of  1828  marks  the 
separation  of  Mr.  Webster  from  the  opinions  of 
the  old  school  of  New  England  Federalism. 
Thereafter  he  stood  forth  as  the  champion  of  the 
tariff  and  of  the  “ American  system  ” of  Henry 
Clay.  Regarding  protection  in  its  true  light,  as 
a mere  question  of  expediency,  he  followed  the 


TEE  TARIFF  OF  1828. 


171 


interests  of  New  England  and  of  the  great  indus- 
trial communities  of  the  North.  That  he  shifted 
his  ground  at  the  proper  moment,  bad  as  the  “ bill 
of  abominations  ” was,  and  that,  as  a Northern 
statesman,  he  was  perfectly  justified  in  doing  so, 
cannot  be  fairly  questioned  or  criticised.  It  is 
true  that  his  course  was  a sectional  one,  but  every- 
body else’s  on  this  question  was  the  same,  and  it 
could  not  be,  it  never  has  been,  and  never  will  be 
otherwise. 

The  tariff  of  1828  was  destined  indirectly  to 
have  far  more  important  results  to  Mr.  Webster 
than  the  brief  speech  in  which  he  signalized  his 
change  of  position  on  the  question  of  protection. 
Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  in  May,  1828, 
the  South  Carolina  delegation  held  a meeting  to 
take  steps  to  resist  the  operation  of  the  tariff,  but 
nothing  definite  was  then  accomplished.  Popu- 
lar meetings  in  South  Carolina,  characterized  by 
much  violent  talk,  followed,  however,  duping  the 
summer,  and  in  the  autumn  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  put  forth  the  famous  “ exposition  and  pro- 
test ” which  emanated  from  Mr.  Calhoun,  and 
embodied  in  the  fullest  and  strongest  terms  the 
principles  of  “ nullification.”  These  movements 
were  viewed  with  regret  and  with  some  alarm 
throughout  the  country,  but  they  were  rather  lost 
sight  of  in  the  intense  excitement  of  the  presi- 
dential election.  The  accession  of  Jackson  then 
came  to  absorb  the  public  attention,  and  brought 


172 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


with  it  the  sweeping  removals  from  office  which 
Mr.  Webster  strongly  denounced.  At  the  same 
time  he  was  not  led  into  the  partisan  absurdity  of 
denying  the  President’s  power  of  removal,  and 
held  to  the  impregnable  position  of  steady  resist- 
ance to  the  evils  of  patronage,  which  could  be 
cured  only  by  the  operation  of  an  enlightened 
public  sentiment.  It  is  obvious  now  that,  in  the 
midst  of  all  this  agitation  about  other  matters, 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  the  South  Carolinians  never  lost 
sight  of  the  conflict  for  which  they  were  prepar- 
ing, and  that  they  were  on  the  alert  to  bring  nulli- 
fication to  the  front  in  a more  menacing  and 
pronounced  fashion  than  had  yet  been  attempted. 

The  grand  assault  was  finally  made  in  the  Sen- 
ate, under  the  eye  of  the  great  nullifier,  who  then 
occupied  the  chair  of  the  Vice-President,  and 
came  in  an  unexpected  way.  In  December,  1829, 
Mr.  Foote  of  Connecticut  introduced  a harmless 
resolution  of  inquiry  respecting  the  sales  and  sur- 
veys of  the  Western  lands.  In  the  long-drawn 
debate  which  ensued,  General  Hayne  of  South 
Carolina,  on  January  19,  1880,  made  an  elaborate 
attack  on  the  New  England  States.  He  accused 
them  of  a desire  to  check  the  growth  of  the  West 
in  the  interests  of  the  protective  policy,  and  tried 
to  show  the  sympathy  which  should  exist  between 
the  West  and  South,  and  lead  them  to  make  com- 
mon cause  against  the  tariff.  Mr.  Webster  felt 
that  this  attack  could  Tiot  be  left  unanswered,  and 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


173 


the  next  day  he  replied  to  it.  This  first  speech 
on  Foote’s  resolution  has  been  so  obscured  by  the 
greatness  of  the  second  that  it  is  seldom  referred 
to  and  but  little  read.  Yet  it  is  one  of  the  most 
effective  retorts,  one  of  the  strongest  pieces  of 
destructive  criticism,  ever  uttered  in  the  Senate, 
although  its  purpose  was  simply  to  repel  the 
charge  of  hostility  to  the  West  on  the  part  of  New 
England.  The  accusation  was  in  fact  absurd,  and 
but  few  years  had  elapsed  since  Mr.  Webster  and 
New  England  had  been  assailed  by  Mr.  McDuffie 
for  desiring  to  build  up  the  West  at  the  expense 
of  the  South  by  the  policy  of  internal  improve- 
ments. It  was  not  difficult,  therefore,  to  show  the 
groundlessness  of  this  new  attack,  but  Mr.  Web- 
ster did  it  with  consummate  art  and  great  force, 
shattering  Hayne’s  elaborate  argument  to  pieces 
and  treading  it  under  foot.  Mr.  Webster  only  al- 
luded incidentally  to  the  tariff  agitation  in  South 
Carolina,  but  the  crushing  nature  of  the  reply 
inflamed  and  mortified  Mr.  Hayne,  who,  on  the 
following  day,  insisted  on  Mr.  Webster’s  presence, 
and  spoke  for  the  second  time  at  great  length. 
He  made  a bitter  attack  upon  New  England,  upon 
Mr.  Webster  personally,  and  upon  the  character 
and  patriotism  of  Massachusetts.  He  then  made 
a full  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  nullification, 
giving  free  expression  of  the  views  and  principles 
entertained  by  his  master  and  leader,  who  pre- 
sided over  the  discussion.  The  debate  had  now 


174 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


drifted  far  from  the  original  resolution,  but  its 
real  object  had  been  reached  at  last.  The  war 
upon  the  tariff  had  been  begun,  and  the  standard 
of  nullification  and  of  resistance  to  the  Union  and 
to  the  laws  of  Congress  had  been  planted  boldly 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  debate 
was  adjourned  and  Mr.  Hayne  did  not  conclude  till 
J anuary  25.  The  next  day  Mr.  Webster  replied  in 
the  second  speech  on  Foote’s  resolution,  which  is 
popularly  known  as  the  “ Reply  to  Hayne.” 

This  great  speech  marks  the  highest  point  at- 
tained by  Mr.  Webster  as  a public  man.  He 
never  surpassed  it,  he  never  equalled  it  after- 
wards. It  was  his  zenith  intellectually,  politi- 
cally, and  as  an  orator.  His  fame  grew  and 
extended  in  the  years  which  followed,  he  won 
ample  distinction  in  other  fields,  he  made  many 
other  splendid  speeches,  but  he  never  went  beyond 
the  reply  which  he  made  to  the  Senator  from 
South  Carolina  on  January  26,  1830. 

The  doctrine  of  nullification,  which  was  the 
main  point  both  with  Hayne  and  Webster,  was  no 
new  thing.  The  word  was  borrowed  from  the 
Kentucky  resolutions  of  1799,  and  the  principle 
was  contained  in  the  more  cautious  phrases  of 
the  contemporary  Virginia  resolutions  and  of  the 
Hartford  Convention  in  1814.  The  South  Caro- 
linian reproduction  in  1830  was  fuller  and  more 
elaborate  than  its  predecessors  and  supported  by 
more  acute  reasoning,  but  the  principle  was  un- 


TEE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


175 


changed.  Mr.  Webster’s  argument  was  simple  but 
overwhelming.  He  admitted  fully  the  right  of  rev- 
olution. He  accepted  the  proposition  that  no  one 
was  bound  to  obey  an  unconstitutional  law ; but 
the  essential  question  was  who  was  to  say  whether 
a law  was  unconstitutional  or  not.  Each  State  has 
that  authority,  was  the  reply  of  the  nullifiers,  and 
if  the  decision  is  against  the  validity  of  the  law  it 
cannot  be  executed  within  the  limits  of  the  dis- 
senting State.  The  vigorous  sarcasm  with  which 
Mr.  Webster  depicted  practical  nullification,  and 
showed  that  it  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  rev- 
olution when  actually  carried  out,  was  really  the 
conclusive  answer  to  the  nullifying  doctrine.  But 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  school  eagerly  denied  that 
nullification  rested  on  the  right  to  revolt  against 
oppression.  They  argued  that  it  was  a constitu- 
tional right ; that  they  could  live  within  the  Con- 
stitution and  beyond  it,  — inside  the  house  and  out- 
side it  at  one  and  the  same  time.  They  contended 
that,  the  Constitution  being  a compact  between 
the  States,  the  Federal  government  was  the  creation 
of  the  States;  yet,  in  the  same  breath,  they  de- 
clared that  the  general  government  was  a party  to 
the  contract  from  which  it  had  itself  emanated,  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  of  proving  that, 
while  the  single  dissenting  State  could  decide 
against  the  validity  of  a law,  the  twenty  or  more 
other  States,  also  parties  to  the  contract,  had  no 
right  to  deliver  an  opposite  judgment  which 


176 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


should  be  binding  as  the  opinion  of  the  majority 
of  the  court.  There  was  nothing  very  ingenious 
or  very  profound  in  the  argument  by  which  Mr. 
Webster  demonstrated  the  absurdity  of  the  doc- 
trine which  attempted  to  make  nullification  a 
peaceable  constitutional  privilege,  when  it  could 
be  in  practice  nothing  else  than  revolution.  But 
the  manner  in  which  he  put  tlie  argument  was 
magnificent  and  final.  As  he  himself  said,  in  this 
very  speech,  of  Samuel  Dexter,  “his  statement 
was  argument,  his  inference  demonstration.” 

The  weak  places  in  his  armor  were  historical 
in  their  nature.  It  was  probably  necessary,  at  all 
events  Mr.  Webster  felt  it  to  be  so,  to  argue  that 
the  Constitution  at  the  outset  was  not  a compact 
between  the  States,  but  a national  instrument, 
and  to  distinguish  the  cases  of  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tuckjr  in  1799  and  of  New  England  in  1814,  from 
that  of  South  Carolina  in  1880.  The  former  point 
he  touched  upon  lightly,  the  latter  he  discussed 
ably,  eloquently,  ingeniously,  and  at  length.  Un- 
fortunately the  facts  were  against  him  in  both  in- 
stances. When  the  Constitution  was  adopted  by 
the  votes  of  States  at  Philadelphia,  and  accepted 
by  the  votes  of  States  in  popular  conventions,  it 
is  safe  to  say  that  there  was  not  a man  in  the 
country  from  Washington  and  Hamilton  on  the 
one  side,  to  George  Clinton  and  George  Mason  on 
the  other,  who  regarded  the  new  system  as  any- 
thing but  an  experiment  entered  upon  by  the 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


177 


States  and  from  which  each  and  every  State  had 
the  right  peaceably  to  withdraw,  a right  which 
was  very  likely  to  be  exercised.  When  the  Vir- 
ginia and  Kentucky  resolutions  appeared  they 
were  not  opposed  on  constitutional  grounds,  but 
on  those  of  expediency  and  of  hostility  to  the  rev- 
olution which  they  were  considered  to  embody. 
Hamilton,  and  no  one  knew  the  Constitution  bet- 
ter than  he,  treated  them  as  the  beginnings  of  an 
attempt  to  change  the  government,  as  the  germs 
of  a conspiracy  to  destroy  the  Union.  As  Dr. 
Von  Holst  tersely  and  accurately  states  it,  “ there' 
was  no  time  as  yet  to  attempt  to  strangle  the 
healthy  human  mind  in  a net  of  logical  deduc- 
tions.” That  was  the  work  reserved  for  John  C.. 
Calhoun. 

What  is  true  of  1799  is  true  of  the  New  Eng- 
land leaders  at  Washington  when  they  discussed 
the  feasibility  of  secession  in  1804 ; of  the  decla- 
ration in  favor  of  secession  made  by  Josiah  Quincy 
in  Congress  a few  years  later ; of  the  resistance  of 
New  England  during  the  war  of  1812,  and  of  the 
right  of  “ interposition  ” set  forth  by  the  Hart- 
ford Convention.  In  all  these  instances  no  one 
troubled  himself  about  the  constitutional  aspect ; 
it  was  a question  of  expediency,  of  moral  and  po- 
litical right  or  wrong.  In  every  case  the  right 
was  simply  stated,  and  the  uniform  answer  was, 
such  a step  means  the  overthrow  of  the  present 
system. 


12 


. 178 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


When  South  Carolina  began  her  resistance  to 
the  tariff  in  1830,  times  had  changed,  and  with 
them  the  popular  conception  of  the  government 
established  by  the  Constitution.  It  was  now  a 
much  more  serious  thing  to  threaten  the  existence 
of  the  Federal  government  than  it  had  been  in 
1799,  or  even  in  1814.  The  great  fabric  which 
had  been  gradually  built  up  made  an  overthrow 
of  the  government  look  very  terrible  ; it  made 
peaceable  secession  a mockery,  and  a withdrawal 
from  the  Union  equivalent  to  civil  war.  The 
boldest  hesitated  to  espouse  any  principle  which 
was  avowedly  revolutionary,  and  on  both  sides 
men  wished  to  have  a constitutional  defence  for 
every  doctrine  which  they  promulgated.  This 
was  the  feeling  which  led  Mr.  Calhoun  to  elabo- 
rate and  perfect  with  all  the  ingenuity  of  his  acute 
and  logical  mind  the  arguments  in  favor  of  nullifi- 
cation as  a constitutional  principle.  At  the  same 
time  the  theory  of  nullification,  however  much 
elaborated,  had  not  altered  in  its  essence  from  the 
bald  and  brief  statement  of  the  Kentucky  resolu- 
tions. The  vast  change  had  come  on  the  other 
side  of  the  question,  in  the  popular  idea  of  the 
Constitution.  It  was  no  longer  regarded  as  an 
experiment  from  which  the  contracting  parties 
had  a right  to  withdraw,  but  as  the  charter  of  a 
national  government.  “ It  is  a critical  moment,” 
said  Mr.  Bell  of  New  Hampshire  to  Mr.  Webster, 
on  the  morning  of  January  26,  “ and  it  is  time,  it 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


179 


is  high  time  that  the  people  of  this  country  should 
know  what  this  Constitution  is."  “ Then,”  an- 
swered Mr.  Webster,  “by  the  blessing  of  heaven 
they  shall  learn,  this  day,  before  the  sun  goes 
down,  what  I understand  it  to  be.”  With  these 
words  on  his  lips  he  entered  the  senate  chamber, 
and  when  he  replied  to  Hayne  he  stated  what  the 
Union  and  the  government  had  come  to  be  at  that 
moment.  He  defined  the  character  of  the  Union 
as  it  existed  in  1830,  and  that  definition  so  mag- 
nificently stated,  and  with  such  grand  eloquence, 
went  home  to  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  put 
into  noble  words  the  sentiment  which  they  felt 
but  had  not  expressed.  This  was  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  reply  to  Hayne.  It  mattered  not 
what  men  thought  of  the  Constitution  in  1789. 
The  government  which  was  then  established 
might  have  degenerated  into  a confederation  little 
stronger  than  its  predecessor.  But  the  Constitu- 
tion did  its  work  better,  and  converted  a confed- 
eracy into  a nation.  Mr.  Webster  set  forth  the 
national  conception  of  the  Union.  He  expressed 
what  many  men  were  vaguely  thinking  and  be- 
lieving, and  the  principles  which  he  made  clear 
and  definite  went  on  broadening  and  deepening 
until,  thirty  years  afterwards,  they  had  a force 
sufficient  to  sustain  the  North  and  enable  her  to 
triumph  in  the  terrible  struggle  which  resulted  in 
the  preservation  of  national  life.  When  Mr. 
Webster  showed  that  practical  nullification  was 


180 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


revolution,  he  had  answered  completely  the  South 
Carolinian  doctrine,  for  revolution  is  not  suscepti- 
ble of  constitutional  argument.  But  in  the  state 
of  public  opinion  at  that  time  it  was  necessary  to 
discuss  nullification  on  constitutional  grounds  also, 
and  Mr.  Webster  did  this  as  eloquently  and  ably 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  admitted.  Whatever  the 
historical  defects  of  his  position,  he  put  weapons 
into  the  hands  of  every  friend  of  the  Union,  and 
gave  reasons  and  arguments  to  the  doubting  and 
timid.  Yet  after  all  is  said,  the  meaning  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  speech  in  our  history  and  its  signifi- 
cance to  us  are,  that  it  set  forth  with  every  attri- 
bute of  eloquence  the  nature  of  the  Union  as  it 
had  developed  under  the  Constitution.  He  took 
the  vague  popular  conception  and  gave  it  life  and 
form  and  character.  He  said,  as  he  alone  could 
say,  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  a nation, 
the}7  are  the  masters  of  an  empire,  their  union  is 
indivisible,  and  the  words  which  then  rang  out 
in  the  senate  chamber  have  come  down  through 
long  years  of  political  conflict  and  of  civil  war, 
until  at  last  they  are  part  of  the  political  creed  of 
every  one  of  his  fellow-countrymen. 

The  reply  to  Hayne  cannot,  however,  be  dis- 
missed with  a consideration  of  its  historical  and 
political  meaning  or  of  its  constitutional  signifi- 
cance. It  has  a personal  and  literary  importance 
of  hardly  less  moment.  There  comes  an  occasion, 
a period  perhaps,  in  the  life  of  every  man  when 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


181 


he  touches  his  highest  point,  -when  he  does  his 
best,  or  even,  under  a sudden  inspiration  and  ex- 
citement, something  better  than  his  best,  and  to 
which  he  can  never  again  attain.  At  the  moment 
it  is  often  impossible  to  detect  this  point,  but  when 
the  man  and  his  career  have  passed  into  history, 
and  we  can  survey  it  all  spread  out  before  us  like 
a map,  the  pinnacle  of  success  can  easily  be  dis- 
covered. The  reply  to  Hayne  was  the  zenith  of 
Mr.  Webster’s  life,  and  it  is  the  place  of  all  others 
where  it  is  fit  to  pause  and  study  him  as  a parlia- 
mentary orator  and  as  a master  of  eloquence. 

Before  attempting,  however,  to  analyze  what 
he  said,  let  us  strive  to  recall  for  a moment  the 
scene  of  his  great  triumph.  On  the  morning  of 
the  memorable  day,  the  senate  chamber  was  packed 
by  an  eager  and  excited  crowd.  Every  seat  on  the 
floor  and  in  the  galleries  was  occupied,  and  all  the 
available  standing-room  was  filled.  The  protracted 
debate,  conducted  with  so  much  ability  on  both 
sides,  had  excited  the  attention  of  the  whole 
country,  and  had  given  time  for  the  arrival  of 
hundreds  of  interested  spectators  from  all  parts 
of  the  Union,  and  especially  from  New  England. 
The  fierce  attacks  of  the  Southern  leaders  had 
angered  and  alarmed  the  people  of  the  North. 
They  longed  with  an  intense  longing  to  have 
these  assaults  met  and  repelled,  and  yet  they 
could  not  believe  that  this  apparently  desperate 
feat  could  be  successfully  accomplished.  Men  of 


182 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


the  North  and  of  New  England  could  be  known 
in  Washington,  in  those  days,  by  their  indignant 
but  dejected  looks  and  downcast  eyes.  They 
gathered  in  the  senate  chamber  on  the  appointed 
day,  quivering  with  anticipation,  and  with  hope 
and  fear  struggling  for  the  mastery  in  their 
breasts.  With  them  were  mingled  those  who 
were  there  from  mere  curiosity,  and  those  who 
had  come  rejoicing  in  the  confident  expectation 
that  the  Northern  champion  would  suffer  failure 
and  defeat. 

In  the  midst  of  the  hush  of  expectation,  in  that 
dead  silence  which  is  so  peculiarly  oppressive  be- 
cause it  is  possible  only  when  many  human  beings 
are  gathered  together,  Mr.  Webster  rose.  He  had 
sat  impassive  and  immovable  during  all  the  pre- 
ceding days,  while  the  storm  of  argument  and  in- 
vective had  beaten  about  his  head.  At  last  his 
time  had  come  ; and  as  he  rose  and  stood  forth, 
drawing  himself  up  to  his  full  height,  his  personal 
grandeur  and  his  majestic  calm  thrilled  all  who 
looked  upon  him.  With  perfect  quietness,  un- 
affected apparently  by  the  atmosphere  of  intense 
feeling  about  him,  he  said,  in  a low,  even  tone  : 

Mr.  President : When  the  mariner  has  been 
tossed  for  many  daj^s  in  thick  weather  and  on 
an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally  avails  himself  of 
the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance 
of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude  and  ascertain  how 
far  the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


183 


course.  Let  us  imitate  this  prudence ; and,  before 
we  float  farther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer 
to  the  point  from  which  we  departed,  that  we  may, 
at  least,  be  able  to  conjecture  where  we  now  are. 
I ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution  before  the 
Senate.’’  This  opening  sentence  was  a piece  of 
consummate  art.  The  simple  and  appropriate 
image,  the  low  voice,  the  calm  manner,  relieved 
the  strained  excitement  of  the  audience,  which 
might  have  ended  by  disconcerting  the  speaker  if 
it  had  been  maintained.  Every  one  was  now  at 
his  ease  ; and  when  the  monotonous  reading  of  the 
resolution  ceased  Mr.  Webster  was  master  of  the 
situation,  and  had  his  listeners  in  complete  control. 
With  breathless  attention  they  followed  him  as 
he  proceeded.  The  strong  masculine  sentences, 
the  sarcasm,  the  pathos,  the  reasoning,  the  burn- 
ing appeals  to  love  of  State  and  country,  flowed  on 
unbroken.  As  his  feelings  warmed  the  fire  came 
into  his  eyes ; there  was  a glow  on  his  swarthy 
cheek;  his  strong  right  arm  seemed  to  sweep 
away  resistlessly  the  whole  phalanx  of  his  oppo- 
nents, and  the  deep  and  melodious  cadences  of  his 
voice  sounded  like  harmonious  organ-tones  as  they 
filled  the  chamber  with  their  music.  As  the  last 
tvords  died  away  into  silence,  those  who  had  list- 
ened looked  wonderingly  at  each  other,  dimly  con- 
scious that  they  had  heard  one  of  the  grand  speeches 
which  are  land-marks  in  the  history  of  eloquence  ; 
and  the  men  of  the  North  and  of  New  England 


184 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


went  forth  full  of  the  pride  of  victory,  for  their 
champion  had  triumphed,  and  no  assurance  was 
needed  to  prove  to  the  world  that  this  time  no 
answer  could  be  made. 

As  every  one  knows,  this  speech  contains  much 
more  than  the  argument  against  nullification, 
which  has  just  been  discussed,  and  exhibits  all  its 
author’s  intellectual  gifts  in  the  highest  perfec- 
tion. Mr.  Hayne  had  touched  on  every  conceiv- 
able subject  of  political  importance,  including 
slavery,  which,  however  covered  up,  was  really 
at  the  bottom  of  every  Southern  movement,  and 
was  certain  sooner  or  later  to  come  to  the  surface. 
All  these  various  topics  Mr.  Webster  took  up, 
one  after  another,  displaying  a most  remarkable 
strength  of  grasp  and  ease  of  treatment.  He  dealt 
with  them  all  effectively  and  yet  in  just  propor- 
tion. Throughout  there  are  bursts  of  eloquence 
skilfully  mingled  with  statement  and  argument, 
so  that  the  listeners  were  never  wearied  by  a 
strained  and  continuous  rhetorical  display;  and 
yet,  while  the  attention  was  closely  held  by  the 
even  flow  of  lucid  reasoning,  the  emotions  and 
passions  were  from  time  to  time  deeply  aroused 
and  strongly  excited.  In  many  passages  of  direct 
retort  Mr.  Webster  used  an  irony  which  he  em- 
ployed always  in  a perfectly  characteristic  way. 
He  had  a strong  natural  sense  of  humor,  but  he 
never  made  fun  or  descended  to  trivial  efforts  to 
excite  laughter  against  his  opponent.  He  was  not 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


185 


a -witty  man  or  a maker  of  epigrams.  But  he  was 
a master  in  the  use  of  a cold,  dignified  sarcasm, 
which  at  times,  and  in  this  instance  particularly, 
he  used  freely  and  mercilessly.  Beneath  the 
measured  sentences  there  is  a lurking  smile  which 
saves  them  from  being  merely  savage  and  cutting 
attacks,  and  yet  brings  home  a keen  sense  of  the 
absurdity  of  the  opponent's  position.  The  weapon 
resembled  more  the  sword  of  Richard  than  the 
scimetar  of  Saladin,  but  it  was  none  the  less  a 
keen  and  trenchant  blade.  There  is  probably  no 
better  instance  of  Mr.  Webster’s  power  of  sarcasm 
than  the  famous  passage  in  which  he  replied  to 
Hayne’s  taunt  about  the  “ murdered  coalition,” 
which  was  said  to  have  existed  between  Adams 
and  Calhoun.  In  a totally  different  vein  is  the 
passage  about  Massachusetts,  perhaps  in  its  way 
as  good  an  example  as  .we  have  of  Webster’s 
power  of  appealing  to  the  higher  and  more  tender 
feelings  of  human  nature.  The  thought  is  simple 
and  even  obvious,  and  the  expression  unadorned, 
and  yet  what  he  said  had  that  subtle  quality 
which  stirred  and  still  stirs  the  heart  of  every 
man  born  on  the  soil  of  the  old  Puritan  Common- 
wealth. 

The  speech  as  a whole  has  all  the  qualities 
which  made  Mr.  Webster  a great  orator,  and  the 
same  traits  run  through  his  other  speeches.  An 
analysis  of  the  reply  to  Hayne,  therefore,  gives  us 
all  the  conditions  necessary  to  forming  a correct 


186  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

idea  of  Mr.  Webster’s  eloquence,  of  its  character- 
istics and  its  value.  The  Attic  school  of  oratory 
subordinated  form  to  thought  to  avoid  the  misuse 
of  ornament,  and  triumphed  over  the  more  florid 
practice  of  the  so-called  “ Asiatics.”  Rome  gave 
the  palm  to  Atticism,  and  modern  oratory  has 
gone  still  farther  in  the  same  direction,  until  its 
predominant  quality  has  become  that  of  making 
sustained  appeals  to  the  understanding.  Logical 
vigilance  and  long  chains  of  reasoning,  avoided 
by  the  ancients,  are  the  essentials  of  our  modern 
oratory.  Many  able  men  have  achieved  success 
under  these  conditions  as  forcible  and  convincing 
speakers.  But  the  grand  eloquence  of  modern 
times  is  distinguished  by  the  bursts  of  feeling,  of 
imagery  or  of  invective,  joined  with  convincing 
argument.  This  combination  is  rare,  and  when- 
ever we  find  a man  who  possesses  it  we  may  be 
sure  that,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  he  is  one  of 
the  great  masters  of  eloquence  as  we  understand 
it.  The  names  of  those  who  in  debate  or  to  a 
jury  have  been  in  every-day  practice  strong  and 
effective  speakers,  and  also  have  thrilled  and 
shaken  large  masses  of  men,  readily  occur  to  us. 
To  this  class  belong  Chatham  and  Burke,  Fox, 
Sheridan  and  Erskine,  Mirabeau  and  Vergniaud, 
Patrick  Henry  and  Daniel  Webster. 

Mr.  Webster  was  of  course  essentially  modern 
in  his  oratory.  He  relied  chiefly  on  the  sustained 
appeal  to  the  understanding,  and  he  was  a con- 


TEE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


187 


spicuous  example  of  the  prophetic  character  which 
Christianity,  and  Protestantism  especially,  has 
given  to  modern  eloquence.  At  the  same  time 
Mr.  Webster  was  in  some  respects  more  classical, 
and  resembled  more  closely  the  models  of  antiq- 
uity, than  any  of  those  who  have  been  mentioned 
as  belonging  to  the  same  high  class.  He  was  wont 
to  pour  forth  the  copious  stream  of  plain,  intelli- 
gible observations,  and  indulge  in  the  varied  ap- 
peals to  feeling,  memory,  and  interest,  which  Lord 
Brougham  sets  down  as  characteristic  of  ancient 
oratory.  It  has  been  said  that  while  Demosthe- 
nes was  a sculptor,  Burke  was  a painter.  Mr_ 
Webster  was  distinctly  more  of  the  former  than 
the  latter.  He  rarely  amplified  or  developed  an 
image  or  a description,  and  in  this  he  followed  the 
Greek  rather  than  the  Englishman.  Dr.  Francis 
Lieber  wrote:  “ To  test  Webster’s  oratory,  which 
has  ever  been  very  attractive  to  me,  I read  a por- 
tion of  my  favorite  speeches  of  Demosthenes,  and 
then  read,  always  aloud,  parts  of  Webster;  then 
returned  to  the  Athenian;  and  Webster  stood  the 
test.”  Apart  from  the  great  compliment  which 
this  conveys,  such  a comparison  is  very  interesting 
as  showing  the  similarity  between  Mr.  Webster 
and  the  Greek  orator.  Not  only  does  the  test  in- 
dicate the  merit  of  Mr.  Webster's  speeches,  but  it 
also  pi’oves  that  he  resembled  the  Athenian,  and 
that  the  likeness  was  more  striking  than  the  inev- 
itable difference  born  of  race  and  time.  Yet  there 


188 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


is  no  indication  that  Webster  ever  made  a study 
of  the  ancient  models  or  tried  to  form  himself 
upon  them. 

The  cause  of  the  classic  self-restraint  in  Web- 
ster was  partly  due  to  the  artistic  sense  which 
made  him  so  devoted  to  simplicity  of  diction,  and 
partly  to  the  cast  of  his  mind.  He  had  a power- 
ful historic  imagination,  but  not  in  the  least  the 
imagination  of  the  poet,  which 

“Bodies  forth  the  forms  of  things  unknown.” 

He  could  describe  with  great  vividness,  brev- 
ity, and  force  what  had  happened  in  the  past, 
what  actually  existed,  or  what  the  future  prom- 
ised. But  his  fancy  never  ran  away  with  him  or 
carried  him  captive  into  the  regions  of  poetry. 
Imagination  of  this  sort  is  readily  curbed  and 
controlled,  and,  if  less  brilliant,  is  safer  than  that 
defined  by  Shakespeare.  For  this  reason,  Mr. 
Webster  rarely  indulged  in  long,  descriptive  pas- 
sages, and,  while  he  showed  the  highest  power  in 
treating  anything  with  a touch  of  humanity  about 
it,  he  was  sparing  of  images  drawn  wholly  from 
nature,  and  was  not  peculiai’ly  successful  in  de- 
picting in  words  natural  scenery  or  phenomena. 
The  result  is,  that  in  his  highest  flights,  while  he 
is  often  grand  and  affecting,  full  of  life  and  power, 
he  never  shows  the  creative  imagination.  But  if 
he  falls  short  on  the  poetic  side,  there  is  the  coun- 
terbalancing advantage  that  there  is  never  a false 


THE  REPLY  TO  EAYNE.  189 

note  nor  an  overwrought  description  which  offends 
our  taste  and  jars  upon  our  sensibilities. 

Mr.  Webster  showed  his  love  of  direct  sim- 
plicity in  his  style  even  more  than  in  his  thought 
or  the  general  arrangement  and  composition  of 
his  speeches.  His  sentences  are.  as  a rule,  short, 
and  therefore  pointed  and  intelligible,  but  they 
never  become  monotonous  and  harsh,  the  fault  to 
which  brevity  is  always  liable.  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  smooth  and  flowing,  and  there  is  always 
a sufficient  variety  of  form.  The  choice  of  lan- 
guage is  likewise  simple.  Mr.  Webster  was  a 
remorseless  critic  of  his  own  style,  and  he  had  an 
almost  extreme  preference  for  Anglo-Saxon  words 
and  a corresponding  dislike  of  Latin  derivatives. 
The  only  exception  he  made  was  in  his  habit  of 
using  “ commence  ” instead  of  its  far  superior 
synonym  “ begin.”  His  style  was  vigorous,  clear, 
and  direct  in  the  highest  degree,  and  at  the  same 
time  warm  and  full  of  vitality.  He  displayed 
that  rare  union  of  strength  with  perfect  simplic- 
ity, the  qualities  which  made  Swift  the  great  mas- 
ter of  pure  and  forcible  English. 

Charles  Fox  is  credited  with  saying  that  a good 
speech  never  reads  well.  This  opinion,  taken  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  intended,  that  a care- 
fully-prepared speech,  which  reads  like  an  essay, 
lacks  the  freshness  and  glow  that  should  charac- 
terize the  oratory  of  debate,  is  undoubtedly  cor- 
rect. But  it  is  equally  true  that  when  a speech 


90 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


which  we  know  to  have  been  good  in  delivery  is 
equally  good  in  print,  a higher  intellectual  plane 
is  reached  and  a higher  level  of  excellence  is  at- 
tained than  is  possible  to  either  the  mere  essay  or 
to  the  effective  retort  or  argument,  which  loses 
its  flavor  with  the  occasion  which  draws  it  forth. 
Mr.  Webster’s  speeches  on  the  tariff,  on  the 
bank,  and  on  like  subjects,  able  as  they  are,  are 
necessarily  dry,  but  his  speeches  on  nobler  themes 
are  admirable  reading.  This  is,  of  course,  due  to 
the  variety  and  ease  of  treatment,  to  their  power, 
and  to  the  purity  of  the  style.  At  the  same  time, 
the  immediate  effect  of  what  he  said  was  immense, 
greater,  even,  than  the  intrinsic  merit  of  the 
speech  itself.  There  has  been  much  discussion  as 
to  the  amount  of  preparation  which  Mr.  Webster 
made.  His  occasional  orations  were,  of  course, 
carefully  written  out  beforehand,  a practice  which 
was  entirely  proper  ; but  in  his  great  parliamen- 
tary speeches,  and  often  in  legal  arguments  as 
well,  he  made  but  slight  preparation  in  the  ordi- 
nary sense  of  the  term.  The  notes  for  the  two 
speeches  on  Foote’s  resolution  were  jotted  down 
on  a few  sheets  of  note-paper.  The  delivery  of 
the  second  one,  his  masterpiece,  was  practically 
extemporaneous,  and  yet  it  fills  seventy  octavo 
pages  and  occupied  four  hours.  He  is  reported 
to  have  said  that  his  whole  life  had  been  a prepa- 
ration for  the  reply  to  Hayne.  Whether  he  said 
it  or  not,  the  statement  is  perfectly  true.  The 


THE  REPLY  TO  EAYNE. 


191 


thoughts  on  the  Union  and  on  the  grandeur  of 
American  nationality  had  been  garnered  up  for 
years,  and  this  in  a greater  or  less  degree  was  true 
of  all  his  finest  efforts.  The  preparation  on  paper 
was  trifling,  but  the  mental  preparation  extend- 
ing over  w:eeks  or  days,  sometimes,  perhaps,  over 
years,  was  elaborate  to  the  last  point.  When  the 
moment  came,  a night’s  work  would  put  all  the 
stored-up  thoughts  in  order,  and  on  the  next  day 
they  would  pour  forth  with  all  the  power  of  a 
strong  mind  thoroughly  saturated  with  its  subject, 
and  yet  with  the  vitality  of  unpremeditated  ex- 
pression, having  the  fresh  glow  of  morning  upon 
it,  and  with  no  trace  of  the  lamp. 

More  than  all  this,  however,  in  the  immediate 
effect  of  Mr.  Webster’s  speeches  was  the  physical 
influence  of  the  man  himself.  We  can  but  half 
understand  his  eloquence  and  its  influence  if  we 
do  not  carefully  study  his  physical  attributes, 
his  temperament  and  disposition.  In  face,  form, 
and  voice,  nature  did  her  utmost  for  Daniel  Web- 
ster. No  envious  fairy  was  present  at  his  birth  to 
mar  these  gifts  by  her  malign  influence.  He 
seemed  to  every  one  to  be  a giant ; that,  at  least, 
is  the  word  we  most  commonly  find  applied  to 
him,  and  there  is  no  better  proof  of  his  enormous 
physical  impressiveness  than  this  well-known  fact, 
for  Mr.  Webster  was  not  a man  of  extraordinary 
stature.  He  was  five  feet  ten  inches  in  height, 
and,  in  health,  weighed  a little  less  than  two  hun- 


192 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dred  pounds.  These  are  the  proportions  of  a 
large  man,  but  there  is  nothing  remarkable  about 
them.  We  must  look  elsewhere  than  to  mere  size 
to  discover  why  men  spoke  of  Webster  as  a giant. 
He  had  a swarthy  complexion  and  straight  black 
hair.  His  head  was  very  large,  the  brain  weigh- 
ing, as  is  well  known,  more  than  any  on  record, 
except  those  of  Cuvier  and  of  the  celebrated 
bricklayer.  At  the  same  time  his  head  was  of 
noble  shape,  with  a broad  and  lofty  brow,  and 
his  features  were  finely  cut  and  full  of  massive 
strength.  His  eyes  were  extraordinary.  They 
were  very  dark  and  deep-set,  and,  when  he  began 
to  rouse  himself  to  action,  shone  with  the  deep 
light  of  a forge-fire,  getting  ever  more  glowing  as 
excitement  rose.  His  voice  was  in  harmony  with 
his  appearance.  It  was  low  and  musical  in  conver- 
sation ; in  debate  it  was  high  but  full,  ringing  out 
in  moments  of  excitement  like  a clarion,  and  then 
sinking  to  deep  notes  with  the  solemn  richness  of 
organ-tones,  while  the  words  were  accompanied  by 
a manner  in  which  grace  and  dignity  mingled  in 
complete  accord.  The  impression  which  he  pro- 
duced upon  the  eye  and  ear  it  is  difficult  to  ex- 
press. There  is  no  man  in  all  history  who  came 
into  the  world  so  equipped  physically  for  speech. 
In  this  direction  nature  could  do  no  more.  The 
mere  look  of  the  man  and  the  sound  of  his  voice 
made  all  who  saw  and  heard  him  feel  that  he 
must  be  the  embodiment  of  wisdom,  dignity,  and 


TEE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


193 


strength,  divinely  eloquent,  even  if  he  sat  in 
dreamy  silence  or  uttered  nothing  but  heavy  com- 
monplaces. 

It  is  commonly  said  that  no  one  of  the  many 
pictures  of  Mr.  Webster  gives  a true  idea  of  what 
he  was.  We  can  readily  believe  this  when  we  read 
the  descriptions  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
That  indefinable  quality  which  we  call  personal 
magnetism,  the  power  of  impressing  by  one’s  per- 
sonality every  human  being  who  comes  near,  was 
at  its  height  in  Mr.  Webster.  He  never,  for  in- 
stance, punished  his  children,  but  when  they  did 
wrong  he  would  send  for  them  and  look  at  them 
silently.  The  look,  whether  of  anger  or  sorrow, 
was  punishment  and  rebuke  enough.  It  was  the 
same  with  other  children.  The  little  daughter  of 
Mr.  Wirt  once  came  into  a room  where  Mr.  Web- 
ster was  sitting  with  his  back  toward  her,  and 
touched  him  on  the  arm.  He  turned  suddenly, 
and  the  child  started  back  with  an  affrighted  cry 
at  the  sight  of  that  dark,  stern,  melancholy  face. 
But  the  cloud  passed  as  swiftly  as  the  shadows  on 
a summer  sea,  and  the  next  moment  the  look  of 
affection  and  humor  brought  the  frightened  child 
into  Mr.  Webster’s  arms,  and  they  were  friends 
and  playmates  in  an  instant. 

The  power  of  a look  and  of  changing  expres- 
sion, so  magical  with  a child,  was  hardly  less  so 
with  men.  There  have  been  very  few  instances 
in  history  where  there  is  such  constant  reference 

13 


194 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


to  merely  physical  attributes  as  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Webster.  His  general  appearance  and  his  eyes 
are  the  first  and  last  things  alluded  to  in  every 
contemporary  description.  Every  one  is  familiar 
with  the  story  of  the  English  navvy  who  pointed 
at  Mr.  Webster  in  the  streets  of  Liverpool  and 
said,  “ There  goes  a king.”  Sidney  Smith  ex- 
claimed when  he  saw  him,  “ Good  heavens,  he  is 
a small  cathedral  by  himself.”  Carlyle,  no  lover 
of  America,  wrote  to  Emerson  : — 

“ Not  many  days  ago  I saw  at  breakfast  the  notablest 
of  all  your  notabilities,  Daniel  Webster.  He  is  a mag- 
nificent specimen.  You  might  say  to  all  the  world, 
‘ This  is  our  Yankee  Englishman  ; such  limbs  we  make 
in  Yankee  land  ! ’ As  a logic  fencer,  or  parliamentary 
Hercules,  one  would  incline  to  back  him  at  first  sight 
against  all  the  extant  world.  The  tanned  complexion  ; 
that  amorphous  crag-like  face  ; the  dull  black  eyes  un- 
der the  precipice  of  brows,  like  dull  anthracite  furnaces 
needing  only  to  be  blown  ; the  mastiff  mouth  accurately 
closed  ; I have  not  traced  so  much  of  silent  Berserlcir  rage 
that  I remember  of  in  any  man.  ‘ I guess  1 should  not 
like  to  be  your  nigger!’  Webster  is  not  loquacious, 
but  he  is  pertinent,  conclusive  ; a dignified,  perfectly 
bred  man,  though  not  English  in  breeding  ; a man  wor- 
thy of  the  best  reception  among  us,  and  meeting  such  I 
understand.” 

Such  was  the  effect  produced  by  Mr.  Webster 
when  in  England,  and  it  was  a universal  impres- 
sion. Wherever  he  went  men  felt  in  the  depths 


THE  REPLY  TO  EAYNE. 


195 


of  their  being  the  amazing  force  of  his  personal 
presence.  He  could  control  an  audience  by  a look, 
and  could  extort  applause  from  hostile  listeners 
by  a mere  glance.  On  one  occasion,  after  the  7th 
of  March  speech,  there  is  a story  that  a noted 
abolitionist  leader  was  present  in  the  crowd  gath- 
ered to  hear  Mr.  Webster,  and  this  bitter  oppo- 
nent is  reported  to  have  said  afterwards,  “ When 
Webster,  speaking  of  secession,  asked  ‘what  is  to 
become  of  me,’  I was  thrilled  with  a sense  of  some 
awful  impending  calamity.”  The  story  may  be 
apocryphal,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  essen- 
tial truth  so  far  as  the  effect  of  Mr.  Webster’s  per- 
sonal presence  goes.  People  looked  at  him,  and 
that  was  enough.  Mr.  Parton  in  his  essay  speaks 
of  seeing  Webster  at  a public  dinner,  sitting  at  the 
head  of  the  table  with  a bottle  of  Madeira  under 
his  yellow  waistcoat,  and  looking  like  Jove.  When 
he  presided  at  the  Cooper  memorial  meeting  in 
New  York  he  uttered  only  a few  stately  platitudes, 
and  yet  every  one  went  away  with  the  firm  convic- 
tion that  they  had  heard  him  speak  words  of  the 
profoundest  wisdom  and  grandest  eloquence. 

The  temptation  to  rely  on  his  marvellous  phys- 
ical gifts  grew  on  him  as  he  became  older,  which 
was  to  be  expected  with  a man  of  his  tempera- 
ment. Even  in  his  early  days,  when  he  was  not 
in  action,  he  had  an  impassible  and  slumberous 
look ; and  when  he  sat  listening  to  the  invective 
of  Hayne,  no  emotion  could  be  traced  on  his  cold. 


196 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dark,  melancholy  face,  or  in  the  cavernous  eyes 
shining  with  a dull  light.  This  all  vanished  when 
he  began  to  speak,  and,  as  he  poured  forth  his 
strong,  weighty  sentences,  there  was  no  lack  of 
expression  or  of  movement.  But  Mr.  Webster, 
despite  his  capacity  for  work,  and  his  protracted 
and  often  intense  labor,  was  constitutionally  indo- 
lent, and  this  sluggishness  of  temperament  in- 
creased very  much  as  he  grew  older.  It  extended 
from  the  periods  of  repose  to  those  of  action  until, 
in  his  later  years,  a direct  stimulus  was  needed  to 
make  him  exert  himself.  Even  to  the  last  the 
mighty  power  was  still  there  in  undiminished 
strength,  but  it  was  not  willingly  put  forth. 
Sometimes  the  outside  impulse  would  not  come; 
sometimes  the  most  trivial  incident  would  suffice, 
and  like  a spark  on  the  train  of  gunpowder  would 
bring  a sudden  burst  of  eloquence,  electrifying  all 
who  listened.  On  one  occasion  he  was  arguing  a 
case  to  the  jury.  He  was  talking  in  his  heaviest 
and  most  ponderous  fashion,  and  with  half  closed 
eyes.  The  court  and  the  jurymen  were  nearly 
asleep  as  Mr.  Webster  argued  on,  stating  the  law 
quite  wrongly  to  his  nodding  listeners.  The  coun- 
sel on  the  other  side  interrupted  him  and  called 
the  attention  of  the  court  to  Mr.  Webster’s  pres- 
entation of  the  law.  The  judge,  thus  awakened, 
explained  to  the  jury  that  the  law  was  not  as  Mr. 
Webster  stated  it.  While  this  colloquy  was  in  prog- 
ress Mr.  Webster  roused  up,  pushed  back  his  thick 


THE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


197 


hair,  shook  himself,  and  glanced  about  him  with 
the  look  of  a caged  lion.  When  the  judge  paused, 
he  turned  again  to  the  jury,  his  eyes  no  longer 
half  shut  but  wide  open  and  glowing  with  excite- 
ment. Raising  his  voice,  he  said,  in  tones  which 
made  every  one  start : If  my  client  could  recover 
under  the  law  as  I stated  it,  how  much  more  is  he 
entitled  to  recover  under  the  law  as  laid  down  by 
the  court ; ” and  then,  the  jury  now  being  thor- 
oughly awake,  he  poured  forth  a flood  of  eloquent 
argument  and  won  his  case.  In  his  latter  days 
Mr.  Webster  made  many  careless  and  dull  speeches 
and  carried  them  through  by  the  power  of  his  look 
and  manner,  but  the  time  never  came  when,  if 
fairly  aroused,  he  failed  to  sway  the  hearts  and 
understandings  of  men  by  a grand  and  splendid 
eloquence.  The  lion  slept  very  often,  but  it  never 
became  safe  to  rouse  him  from  his  slumber. 

It  was  soon  after  the  reply  to  Hayne  that  Mr. 
Webster  made  his  great  argument  for  the  govern- 
ment in  the  White  murder  case.  One  other  ad- 
dress to  a jury  in  the  Goodridge  case,  and  the 
defence  of  Judge  Prescott  before  the  Massachu- 
setts Senate,  which  is  of  similar  character,  have 
been  preserved  to  us.  The  speech  for  Prescott  is 
a strong,  dignified  appeal  to  the  sober,  and  yet 
sympathetic,  judgment  of  his  hearers,  but  wholly 
free  from  any  attempt  to  confuse  or  mislead,  or  to 
sway  the  decision  by  unwholesome  pathos.  Under 
the  circumstances,  which  were  very  adverse  to  his 


198 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


client,  the  argument  was  a model  of  its  kind,  and 
contains  some  very  fine  passages  full  of  the  sol- 
emn force  so  characteristic  of  its  author.  The 
Goodridge  speech  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  the 
ease  with  which  Mr.  Webster  unravelled  a compli- 
cated set  of  facts,  demonstrated  that  the  accuser 
was  in  reality  the  guilty  party,  and  carried  irre- 
sistible conviction  to  the  minds  of  the  jurors.  It 
was  connected  with  a remarkable  exhibition  of  his 
power  of  cross-examination,  which  was  not  only 
acute  and  penetrating,  but  extremely  terrifying 
to  a recalcitrant  witness.  The  argument  in  the 
White  case,  as  a specimen  of  eloquence,  stands  on 
far  higher  ground  than  either  of  the  other  two, 
and,  apart  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  ranks 
with  the  very  best  of  Mr.  Webster’s  oratorical 
triumphs.  The  opening  of  the  speech,  comprising 
the  account  of  the  murder  and  the  analysis  of  the 
workings  of  a mind  seared  with  the  remembrance 
of  a horrid  crime,  must  be  placed  among  the  very 
finest  masterpieces  of  modern  oratory.  The  de- 
scription of  the  feelings  of  the  murderer  has  a 
touch  of  the  creative  power,  but,  taken  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  wonderful  picture  of  the  deed  itself, 
the  whole  exhibits  the  highest  imaginative  excel- 
lence, and  displays  the  possession  of  an  extraordi- 
nary dramatic  force  such  as  Mr.  Webster  rarely 
exerted.  It  has  the  same  power  of  exciting  a 
kind  of  horror  and  of  making  us  shudder  with  a 
creeping,  nameless  terror  as  the  scene  after  the 


THE  REFLY  TO  BAYNE. 


199 


murder  of  Duncan,  when  Macbeth  rushes  out  from 
the  chamber  of  death,  crying,  “ I have  done  the 
deed.  Didst  thou  not  hear  a noise?  ” I have  stud- 
ied this  famous  exordium  with  extreme  care,  and  I 
have  sought  diligently  in  the  works  of  all  the  great 
modern  orators,  and  of  some  of  the  ancient  as  well, 
for  similar  passages  of  higher  merit.  My  quest 
has  been  in  vain.  Mr.  Webster’s  description  of 
the  White  murder,  and  of  the  ghastly  haunting 
sense  of  guilt  which  pursued  the  assassin,  has 
never  been  surpassed  in  dramatic  force  by  any 
speaker,  whether  in  debate  or  before  a jury.  Per- 
haps the  most  celebrated  descriptive  passage  in 
the  literature  of  modern  eloquence  is  the  picture 
drawn  by  Burke  of  the  descent  of  Hyder  Ali  upon 
the  plains  of  the  Carnatic,  but  even  that  certainly 
falls  short  of  the  opening  of  W ebster’s  speech  in 
simple  force  as  well  as  in  dramatic  power.  Burke 
depicted  with  all  the  ardor  of  his  nature  and  with 
a wealth  of  color  a great  invasion  which  swept 
thousands  to  destruction.  Webster’s  theme  was 
a cold-blooded  murder  in  a quiet  New  England 
town.  Comparison  between  such  topics,  when  one 
is  so  infinitely  larger  than  the  other,  seems  at  first 
sight  almost  impossible.  But  Mr.  Webster  also 
dealt  with  the  workings  of  the  human  heart  under 
the  influence  of  the  most  terrible  passions,  and 
those  have  furnished  sufficient  material  for  the 
genius  of  Shakespeare.  The  test  of  excellence  is 
in  the  treatment,  and  in  this  instance  Mr.  Web- 


200 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ster  has  never  been  excelled.  The  effect  of  that 
exordium,  delivered  as  he  alone  could  have  deliv- 
ered it,  must  have  been  appalling.  He  was  ac- 
cused of  having  been  brought  into  the  case  to 
hurry  the  jury  beyond  the  law  and  evidence,  and 
his  whole  speech  was  certainly  calculated  to  drive 
any  body  of  men,  terror-stricken  by  his  eloquence, 
wherever  lie  wished  them  to  go.  Mr.  Webster  did 
not  have  that  versatility  and  variety  of  eloquence 
which  we  associate  with  the  speakers  who  have  pro- 
duced the  most  startling  effect  upon  that  complex 
thing  called  a jury.  He  never  showed  that  rapid 
alternation  of  wit,  humor,  pathos,  invective,  sub- 
limity, and  ingenuity  which  have  been  character- 
istic of  the  greatest  advocates.  Before  a jury  as 
everywhere  else  he  was  direct  and  simple.  He 
awed  and  terrified  jurymen  ; he  convinced  their 
reason  ; but  he  commanded  rather  than  persuaded, 
and  carried  them  with  him  by  sheer  force  of  elo- 
quence and  argument,  and  by  his  overpowering 
personality. 

The  extravagant  admiration  which  Mr.  Web- 
ster excited  among  his  followers  has  undoubtedly 
exaggerated  his  greatness  in  many  respects ; but, 
high  as  the  praise  bestowed  upon  him  as  an  ora- 
tor has  been,  in  that  direction  at  least  he  has  cer- 
tainly not  been  overestimated.  The  reverse  rather 
is  true.  Mr.  Webster  was,  of  course,  the  great- 
est orator  this  country  has  ever  produced.  Patrick 
Henry’s  fame  rests  wholly  on  tradition.  The 


THE  REPLY  TO  BAYNE. 


201 


same  is  true  of  Hamilton,  who,  moreover,  never 
had  an  opportunity  adequate  to  his  talents,  which 
were  unquestionably  of  the  first  order.  Fisher 
Ames’s  reputation  was  due  to  a single  speech 
which  is  distinctly  inferior  to  many  of  Webster’s. 
Clay’s  oratory  has  not  stood  the  test  of  time ; 
his  speeches,  which  were  so  wonderfully  effective 
when  he  uttered  them,  seem  dead  and  cold  and 
rather  thin  as  we  read  them  to-da}\  Calhoun  was 
a great  debater,  but  was  too  dry  and  hard  for  the 
highest  eloquence.  John  Quincy  Adams,  despite 
his  physical  limitations,  carried  the  eloquence  of 
combat  and  bitter  retort  to  the  highest  point  in 
the  splendid  battles  of  his  congressional  career, 
but  his  learning,  readiness,  power  of  expression, 
argument,  and  scathing  sarcasm  were  not  rounded 
into  a perfect  whole  by  the  more  graceful  attri- 
butes which  also  form  an  essential  part  of  ora- 
tory. 

Mr.  Webster  need  not  fear  comparison  with  any 
of  his  countrymen,  and  he  has  no  reason  to  shun 
it  with  the  greatest  masters  of  speech  in  England. 
He  had  much  of  the  grandeur  of  Chatham,  with 
whom  it  is  impossible  to  compare  him  or  indeed 
any  one  else,  for  the  Great  Commoner  lives  only 
in  fragments  of  doubtful  accuracy.  Sheridan 
was  universally  considered  to  have  made  the  most 
splendid  speech  of  his  day.  Yet  the  speech  on  the 
Begums  as  given  by  Moore  does  not  cast  Web- 
ster’s best  work  at  all  into  the  shade.  Webster 


202 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


did  not  have  Sheridan’s  brilliant  wit,  but  on  the 
other  hand  be  was  never  forced,  never  involved, 
never  guilty  of  ornament,  which  fastidious  judges 
would  now  pronounce  tawdry.  Webster’s  best 
speeches  read  much  better  than  anything  of  Sheri- 
dan, and,  so  far  as  we  can  tell  from  careful  de- 
scriptions, his  manner,  look,  and  delivery  were  far 
more  imposing.  The  “ manly  eloquence  ” of  Fox 
seems  to  have  resembled  Webster’s  more  closely 
than  that  of  any  other  of  his  English  rivals.  Fox 
was  more  fertile,  more  brilliant,  more  surprising 
than  Webster,  and  had  more  quickness  and  dash, 
and  a greater  ease  and  charm  of  manner.  ( But  he 
was  often  careless,  and  sometimes  fell  into  repe- 
titions, from  which,  of  course,  no  great  speaker 
can  be  wholly  free  any  more  than  he  can  keep 
entirely  clear  of  commonplaces.  Webster  gained 
upon  him  by  superior  finish  and  by  greater  weight 
of  argument.  Before  a jury  Webster  fell  behind 
Erskine  as  he  did  behind  Choate,  although  neither 
of  them  ever  produced  anything  at  all  comparable 
to  the  speech  on  the  White  murder  ; but  in  the 
Senate,  and  in  the  general  field  of  oratory,  he 
rises  high  above  them  both.  The  man  with  whom 
Webster  is  oftenest  compared,  and  the  last  to  be 
mentioned,  is  of  course  Burke.  It  may  be  con- 
ceded at  once  that  in  creative  imagination,  and  in 
richness  of  imagery  and  language,  Burke  ranks 
above  Webster.  But  no  one  would  ever  have  said 
of  Webster  as  Goldsmith  did  of  Burke : — 


TEE  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 


203 


« Who,  too  deep  for  his  hearers,  still  went  on  refining, 

And  thought  of  convincing  while  they  thought  of  dining.” 

Webster  never  sinned  by  over  refinement  or 
over  ingenuity,  for  both  were  utterly  foreign  to 
his  nature.  Still  less  did  be  impair  his  power  in 
the  Senate  as  Burke  did  in  the  Commons  by  talk- 
ing too  often  and  too  much.  If  he  did  not  have 

O 

the  extreme  beauty  and  grace  of  which  Burke  was 
capable,  he  was  more  forcible  and  struck  harder 
and  more  weighty  blows.  He  was  greatly  aided 
in  this  by  his  brief  and  measured  periods,  and  his 
strength  was  never  wasted  in  long  and  elaborate 
sentences.  Webster,  moreover,  would  never  have 
degenerated  into  the  ranting  excitement  which  led 
Burke  to  draw  a knife  from  his  bosom  and  cast  it 
on  the  floor  of  the  House.  This  illustrates  what 
was,  perhaps,  Mr.  Webster’s  very  strongest  point, 
— his  absolute  good  taste.  He  may  have  been 
ponderous  at  times  in  his  later  years.  We  know 
that  he  was  occasionally  heavy,  pompous,  and  even 
dull,  but  he  never  violated  the  rules  of  the  nicest 
taste.  Other  men  have  been  more  versatile,  pos- 
sessed of  a richer  imagination  and  more  gorgeous 
st3Tle,  with  a more  brilliant  wit  and  a keener  sar- 
casm, but  there  is  not  one  who  is  so  absolutely 
free  from  faults  of  taste  as  Webster,  or  who  is  so 
uniformly  simple  and  pure  in  thought  and  style, 
even  to  the  point  of  severity.1 

1 A volume  might  be  written  comparing  Mr.  Webster  with 
other  great  orators.  Only  the  briefest  and  most  rudimentary 


204 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


It  is  easy  to  compare  Mr.  Webster  with  this 
and  the  other  great  orator,  and  to  select  points  of 
resemblance  and  of  difference,  and  show  where 
Mr.  Webster  was  superior  and  where  he  fell  be- 
hind. But  the  final  verdict  must  be  upon  all  his 
qualities  taken  together.  He  had  the  most  ex- 
traordinary physical  gifts  of  face,  form,  and  voice, 
and  employed  them  to  the  best  advantage.  Thus 
equipped,  he  delivered  a long  series  of  great 
speeches  which  can  be  read  to-day  with  the  deep- 
est interest,  instruction,  and  pleasure.  He  had 
dignity,  grandeur,  and  force,  a strong  historic 
imagination,  and  great  dramatic  power  when  he 
chose  to  exert  it.  He  possessed  an  unerring  taste, 
a capacity  for  vigorous  and  telling  sarcasm,  a glow 
and  fire  none  the  less  intense  because  they  were 
subdued,  perfect  clearness  of  statement  joined  to 
the  highest  skill  in  argument,  and  he  was  mas- 
ter of  a style  which  was  as  forcible  as  it  was  sim- 
ple and  pure.  Take  him  for  all  in  all,  he  was  not 
only  the  greatest  orator  this  country  has  ever 
known,  but  in  the  history  of  eloquence  his  name 
will  stand  with  those  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero, 
of  Chatham  and  Burke. 

treatment  of  the  subject  is  possible  here.  A most  excellent  study 
of  the  comparative  excellence  of  Webster’s  eloquence  has  been 
made  by  Judge  Chamberlain,  Librarian  of  the  Boston  Public 
Library,  in  a speech  at  the  dinner  of  the  Dartmouth  Alumni, 
which  has  since  been  printed  as  a pamphlet. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON  AND  THE  RISE 
OF  THE  WHIG  PARTY. 

In  the  year  preceding  the  delivery  of  his  great 
speech  Mr.  Webster  had  lost  his  brother  Ezekiel 
by  sudden  death,  and  he  had  married  for  his  sec- 
ond wife  Miss  Leroy  of  New  York.  The  former 
event  was  a terrible  grief  to  him,  and  taken  in 
conjunction  with  the  latter  seemed  to  make  a 
complete  break  with  the  past,  and  with  its  strug- 
gles and  privations,  its  joys  and  successes.  The 
slender  girl  whom  he  had  married  in  Salisbury 
church  and  the  beloved  brother  were  both  gone, 
and  with  them  went  those  years  of  youth  in 
which,  — 

“ He  had  sighed  deep,  laughed  free. 

Starved,  feasted,  despaired,  been  happy.” 

One  cannot  come  to  this  dividing  line  in  Mr.  Web- 
ster's life  without  regret.  There  was  enough  of 
brilliant  achievement  and  substantial  success  in 
what  had  gone  before  to  satisfy  any  man,  and  it 
had  been  honest,  simple,  and  unaffected.  A wider 
fame  and  a greater  name  lay  before  him,  but  with 
them  came  also  ugly  scandals,  bitter  personal  at- 


206 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tacks,  an  ambition  which  warped  his  nature,  and 
finally  a terrible  mistake.  One  feels  inclined  to 
say  of  these  later  years,  with  the  Roman  lover  : — 

“ Shut  them  in 

With  their  triumphs  and  their  glories  and  the  rest. 

Love  is  best.” 

The  home  changed  first,  and  then  the  public 
career.  The  reply  which,  as  John  Quincy  Adams 
said,  “utterly  demolished  the  fabric  of  Hayne’s 
speech  and  left  scarcely  a wreck  to  be  seen,”  went 
straight  home  to  the  people  of  the  North.  It  gave 
eloquent  expression  to  the  strong  but  undefined 
feeling  in  the  popular  mind.  It  found  its  way  into 
every  house  and  was  read  everywhere ; it  took  its 
place  in  the  school  books,  to  be  repeated  by  shrill 
boy  voices,  and  became  part  of  the  literature  and 
of  the  intellectual  life  of  the  country.  In  those 
solemn  sentences  men  read  the  description  of  what 
the  United  States  had  come  to  be  under  the  Con- 
stitution, and  what  American  nationality  meant 
in  1830.  The  leaders  of  the  young  war  party  in 
1812  were  the  first  to  arouse  the  national  senti- 
ment, but  no  one  struck  the  chord  with  such  a 
master  hand  as  Mr.  Webster,  or  drew  forth  such 
long  and  deep  vibrations.  There  is  no  single  ut- 
terance in  our  history  which  has  done  so  much  by 
mere  force  of  words  to  strengthen  the  love  of 
nationality  and  implant  it  deeply  in  the  popular 
heart,  as  the  reply  to  Hayne. 

Before  the  delivery  of  that  speech  Mr.  Webster 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  207 

was  a distinguished  statesman,  but  the  day  after 
he  awoke  to  a national  fame  which  made  all  his 
other  triumphs  pale.  Such  fame  brought  with  it, 
of  course,  as  it  always  does  in  this  country,  talk 
of  the  presidenc}r.  The  reply  to  Hayne  made  Mr. 
Webster  a presidential  candidate,  and  from  that 
moment  he  was  never  free  from  the  gnawing, 
haunting  ambition  to  win  the  grand  prize  of 
American  public  life.  There  was  a new  force  in 
his  career,  and  in  all  the  years  to  come  the  influ- 
ence of  that  force  must  be  reckoned  and  remem' 
bered. 

Mr.  Webster  was  anxious  that  the  party  of  op- 
position to  General  Jackson,  which  then  passed 
by  the  name  of  National  Republicans,  should  be 
in  some  way  strengthened,  solidified,  and  placed  on 
a broad  platform  of  distinct  principles.  He  saw 
with  great  regret  the  ruin  which  was  threatened 
by  the  anti-masonic  schism,  and  it  would  seem 
that  he  was  not  indisposed  to  take  advantage  of 
this  to  stop  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Clay,  who  was 
peculiarly  objectionable  to  the  opponents  of  ma- 
sonry.  He  earnest^  desired  the  nomination  him- 
self, but  even  his  own  friends  in  the  party  told 
him  that  this  was  out  of  the  question,  and  he  ac- 
quiesced in  their  decision.  Mr.  Clay’s  personal 
popularity,  moreover,  among  the  National  Repub- 
licans was,  in  truth,  invincible,  and  he  was  unan- 
imously nominated  by  the  convention  at  Balti- 
more. The  action  of  the  anti-masonic  element  in 


208 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


the  country  doomed  Clay  to  defeat,  which  he  was 
likely  enough  to  encounter  in  any  event;  hut  the 
consolidation  of  the  party  so  ardently  desired  by 
Mr.  Webster  was  brought  about  by  acts  of  the 
administration,  which  completely  overcame  any 
intestine  divisions  among  its  opponents. 

The  session  of  1831-1832,  when  the  country 
was  preparing  for  the  coming  presidential  elec- 
tion, marks  the  beginning  of  the  fierce  struggle 
with  Andrew  Jackson  which  was  to  give  birth  to 
a new  and  powerful  organization  known  in  our 
history  as  the  Whig  party,  and  destined,  after 
years  of  conflict,  to  bring  overwhelming  defeat  to 
the  “ Jacksonian  democracy.”  There  is  no  occa- 
sion here  to  enter  into  a history  of  the  famous 
bank  controversy.  Established  in  1816,  the  bank 
of  the  United  States,  after  a period  of  difficulties, 
had  become  a powerful  and  valuable  financial  or- 
ganization. In  1832  it  applied  for  a continuance 
of  its  charter,  which  then  had  three  years  still  to 
run.  Mr.  Webster  did  not  enter  into  the  per- 
sonal contest  which  had  already  begun,  but  in  a 
speech  of  great  ability  advocated  a renewal  of  the 
charter,  showing,  as  he  always  did  on  such  themes, 
a knowledge  and  a grasp  of  the  principles  and  in- 
tricacies of  public  finance  unequalled  in  our  his- 
tory except  by  Hamilton.  In  a second  speech  he 
made  a most  effective  and  powerful  argument 
against  a pi’oposition  to  give  the  States  author- 
ity to  tax  the  bank,  defending  the  doctrines  laid 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  209 

down  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall  in  McCullough 
vs.  Maryland,  and  denying  the  power  of  Congress 
to  give  the  States  the  right  of  such  taxation,  be- 
cause by  so  doing  they  violated  the  Constitution. 
The  amendment  was  defeated,  and  the  bill  for  the 
continuance  of  the  charter  passed  both  Houses 
by  large  majorities. 

Jackson  returned  the  bill  with  a veto.  He  had 
the  audacity  to  rest  his  veto  upon  the  ground  that 
the  bill  was  unconstitutional,  and  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  President  to  decide  upon  the  constitu- 
tionality of  every  measure  without  feeling  in  the 
least  bound  by  the  opinion  of  Congress  or  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  His  ignorance  was  so  crass  that 
he  failed  to  perceive  the  distinction  between  a 
new  bill  and  one  to  continue  an  existing  law,  while 
his  vanity  and  his  self-assumption  were  so  colossal 
that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  he  had  the 
right  and  the  power  to  declare  an  existing  law, 
passed  by  Congress,  approved  by  Madison,  and 
held  to  be  constitutional  by  an  express  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  to  be  invalid,  because  he 
thought  fit  to  say  so.  To  overthrow  such  doc- 
trines was  not  difficult,  but  Mr.  Webster  refuted 
them  with  a completeness  and  force  which  were 
irresistible.  At  the  same  time  he  avoided  per- 
sonal attack  in  the  dignified  way  which  was  char- 
acteristic of  him,  despite  the  extraordinary  temp- 
tation to  indulge  in  invective  and  telling  sarcasm 
to  which  Jackson  by  his  ignorance  and  presump- 
14 


210 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tion  had  so  exposed  himself.  The  bill  was  lost, 
the  great  conflict  with  the  bank  was  begun,  and 
the  Whig  party  was  founded. 

Another  event  of  a different  character,  which 
had  occurred  not  long  before,  helped  to  widen  the 
breach  and  to  embitter  the  contest  between  the 
parties  of  the  administration  and  of  the  opposi- 
tion. When  in  1829  Mr.  McLane  had  received 
his  instructions  as  Minister  to  England,  he  had 
been  directed  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  to  reopen  nego- 
tiations on  the  subject  of  the  West  Indian  trade, 
and  in  so  doing  the  Secretary  of  State  had  re- 
flected on  the  previous  administration,  and  bad 
said  that  the  party  in  power  would  not  support 
the  pretensions  of  its  predecessors.  Such  lan- 
guage was,  of  course,  at  variance  with  all  tradi- 
tions, was  wholly  improper,  and  was  mean  and 
contemptible  in  dealing  with  a foreign  nation. 
In  1831  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  nominated  as  Minis- 
ter to  England,  and  came  up  for  confirmation  in 
the  Senate  some  time  after  he  had  actually  de- 
parted on  his  mission.  Mr.  Webster  opposed  the 
confirmation  in  an  eloquent  speech  full  of  just 
pride  in  his  country  and  of  vigorous  indignation 
against  the  slight  which  Mr.  Van  Buren  had  put 
upon  her  by  his  instructions  to  Mr.  McLane.  He 
pronounced  a splendid  “ rebuke  upon  the  first  in- 
stance in  which  an  American  minister  had  been 
sent  abroad  as  the  representative  of  his  party  and 
not  as  the  representative  of  his  country.”  The 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  211 

opposition  was  successful,  and  Mr.  Van  Buren’s 
nomination  was  rejected.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that 
the  rejection  was  a political  mistake,  and  that,  as 
was  commonly  said  at  the  time,  it  created  sympa- 
thy for  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  insured  his  succession 
to  the  presidency.  Yet  no  one  would  now  think 
as  well  of  Mr.  Webster  if,  to  avoid  awakening 
popular  sympathy  and  party  enthusiasm  in  behalf 
of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  he  had  silently  voted  for  that 
gentleman’s  confirmation.  To  do  so  was  to  ap- 
prove the  despicable  tone  adopted  in  the  instruc- 
tions to  McLane.  As  a patriotic  American,  above 
all  as  a man  of  intense  national  feelings,  Mr.  Web- 
ster could  not  have  done  otherwise  than  resist 
with  all  the  force  of  his  eloquence  the  confirma- 
tion of  a man  who  had  made  such  an  undignified 
and  unworthy  exhibition  of  partisanship.  Politi- 
cally he  may  have  been  wrong,  but  morally  he 
was  wholly  right,  and  his  rebuke  stands  in  our 
history  as  a reproach  which  Mr.  Van  Buren’s 
subsequent  success  can  neither  mitigate  nor  im- 
pair. 

There  was  another  measure,  however,  which 
had  a far  different  effect  from  those  which  tended 
to  build  up  the  opposition  to  Jackson  and  his  fol- 
lowers. A movement  was  begun  by  Mr.  Clay 
looking  to  a revision  and  reduction  of  the  tariff, 
which  finally  resulted  in  a bill  reducing  duties  on 
many  articles  to  a revenue  standai’d,  and  leaving 
those  on  cotton  and  woollen  goods  and  iron  un- 


212 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


changed.  In  the  debates  which  occurred  during 
the  passage  of  this  bill  Mr.  Webster  took  but 
little  part,  but  they  caused  a furious  outbreak  on 
the  part  of  the  South  Carolinians  led  by  Hayne, 
and  ended  in  the  confirmation  of  the  protective 
policy.  When  Mr.  Webster  spoke  at  the  New 
York  dinner  in  1831,  he  gave  his  hearers  to  under- 
stand very  clearly  that  the  nullification  agitation 
was  not  at  an  end,  and  after  the  passage  of  the 
new  tariff  bill  he  saw  close  at  hand  the  danger 
which  he  had  predicted. 

In  November,  1832,  South  Carolina  in  conven- 
tion passed  her  famous  ordinance  nullifying  the 
revenue  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  her  Legis- 
lature, which  assembled  soon  aftex-,  enacted  laws  to 
carry  out  the  ordinance,  and  gave  an  open  defi- 
ance to  the  Federal  government.  The  country 
was  filled  with  excitement.  It  was  known  that 
Mr.  Calhoun,  having  published  a letter  in  defence 
of  nullification,  had  resigned  the  vice-presidency, 
accepted  the  senatorship  of  South  Carolina,  and 
was  coming  to  the  capital  to  advocate  his  favoi'ite 
doctrine.  But  the  South  Carolinians  had  made 
one  trifling  blunder.  They  had  overlooked  the 
President.  Jackson  was  a Southerner  and  a Dem- 
ocrat, but  he  was  also  the  head  of  the  nation,  and 
determined  to  maintain  its  integrity.  On  Decem- 
ber 10,  before  Congress  assembled,  he  issued  his 
famous  proclamation  in  which  lie  took  up  vigor- 
ously the  position  adopted  by  Mr.  Webster  in  his 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  213 

reply  to  Hayne,  and  gave  the  South  Carolinians 
to  understand  that  he  would  not  endure  treason, 
but  would  enforce  constitutional  laws  even  though 
he  should  be  compelled  to  use  bayonets  to  do  it. 
The  Legislature  of  the  recalcitrant  State  replied 
in  an  offensive  manner  which  only  served  to  make 
Jackson  angry.  He,  too,  began  to  say  some  pretty 
violent  things,  and,  as  he  generally  meant  what  he 
said,  the  gallant  leaders  of  nullification  and  other 
worthy  people  grew  very  uneasy.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  outlook  was  very  threatening, 
and  the  nullifiers  were  extremely  likely  to  be  the 
first  to  suffer  from  the  effects  of  the  impending 
storm. 

Mr.  Webster  was  in  New  Jersey,  on  his  way  to 
Washington,  when  he  first  received  the  proclama- 
tion, and  at  Philadelphia  he  met  Mr.  Clay,  and 
from  a friend  of  that  gentleman  l'eceived  a copy 
of  a bill  which  was  to  do  away  with  the  tariff  by 
gradual  reductions,  prevent  the  imposition  of  any 
further  duties,  and  which  at  the  same  time  de- 
clared against  protection  and  in  favor  of  a tariff 
for  revenue  only.  This  headlong  plunge  into  con- 
cession and  compromise  was  not  at  all  to  Mr. 
Webster's  taste.  He  was  opposed  to  the  scheme 
for  economical  reasons,  but  still  more  on  the  far 
higher  ground  that  there  was  open  resistance  to 
laws  of  undoubted  constitutionality,  and  until  that 
resistance  was  crushed  under  foot  any  talk  of 
compromise  was  a blow  at  the  national  dignity 


214 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


and  the  national  existence  which  ought  not  to  be 
tolerated  for  an  instant.  His  own  course  was 
plain.  He  proposed  to  sustain  the  administration, 
and  when  the  national  honor  should  be  vindicated 
and  all  unconstitutional  resistance  ended,  then 
would  come  the  time  for  concessions.  Jackson 
was  not  slow  in  giving  Mr.  Webster  something  to 
support.  At  the  opening  of  the  session  a message 
was  sent  to  Congress  asking  that  provision  might 
be  made  to  enable  the  President  to  enforce  the 
laws  by  means  of  the  land  and  naval  forces  if 
necessary.  The  message  was  referred  to  a com- 
mittee, who  at  once  reported  the  celebrated  “ Force 
Bill,”  which  embodied  the  principles  of  the  mes- 
sage and  had  the  entire  approval  of  the  Presi- 
dent. But  Jackson’s  party  broke,  despite  the  at- 
titude of  their  chief,  for  many  of  them  were  from 
the  South  and  could  not  bring  themselves  to  the 
point  of  accepting  the  “ Force  Bill.”  The  mo- 
ment was  critical,  and  the  administration  turned 
to  Mr.  Webster  and  took  him  into  their  councils. 
On  February  8 Mr.  Webster  rose,  and,  after  ex- 
plaining in  a fashion  which  no  one  was  likely  to 
forget,  that  this  was  wholly  an  administration 
measure,  he  announced  his  intention,  as  an  inde- 
pendent senator,  of  giving  it  his  hearty  and  in- 
flexible support.  The  combination  thus  effected 
was  overwhelming.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  now  thor- 
oughly alarmed,  and  we  can  well  imagine  that  the 
threats  of  hanging,  in  which  it  was  rumored  that 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  215 

the  President  had  indulged,  began  to  have  a good 
deal  of  practical  significance  to  a gentleman  who, 
as  Secretary  of  War,  had  been  familiar  with  the 
circumstances  attending  the  deaths  of  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister.  At  all  events,  Mr.  Calhoun  lost 
no  time  in  having  an  interview  with  Mr.  Clay, 
and  the  result  was,  that  the  latter,  on  February 
11,  announced  that  he  should,  on  the  following 
day,  introduce  a tariff  bill,  a measure  of  the  same 
sort  having  already  been  started  in  the  House. 
The  bill  as  introduced  did  not  involve  such  a 
complete  surrender  as  that  which  Mr.  Webster 
had  seen  in  Philadelphia,  but  it  necessitated  most 
extensive  modifications  and  gave  all  that  South 
Carolina  could  reasonably  demand.  Mr.  Clay 
advocated  it  in  a brilliant  speech,  resting  his  de- 
fence on  the  ground  that  this  was  the  only  way  to 
preserve  the  tariff,  and  that  it  was  founded  on  the 
great  constitutional  doctrine  of  compromise.  Mr. 
Webster  opposed  the  bill  briefly,  and  then  intro- 
duced a series  of  resolutions  combating  the  pro- 
posed measure  on  economical  principles  and  on 
those  of  justice,  and  especially  assailing  the  read- 
iness to  abandon  the  rightful  powers  of  Congress 
and  yield  them  up  to  any  form  of  resistance. 
Before,  however,  he  could  speak  in  support  of  his 
resolutions,  the  “Force  Bill”  came  up,  and  Mr. 
Calhoun  made  his  celebrated  argument  in  sup- 
port of  nullification.  This  Mr.  Webster  was 
obliged  to  answer,  and  he  replied  with  the  great 


216 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


speech  known  in  his  works  as  “ The  Constitution 
not  a compact  between  sovereign  States.”  In  a 
general  way  the  same  criticism  is  applicable  to 
this  debate  as  to  that  with  Hayne,  but  there  were 
some  important  differences.  Mr.  Calhoun’s  argu- 
ment was  superior  to  that  of  his  follower.  It  was 
dry  and  hard,  but  it  was  a splendid  specimen  of 
close  and  ingenious  reasoning,  and,  as  was  to  be 
expected,  the  originator  and  master  surpassed  the 
imitator  and  pupil.  Mr.  Webster’s  speech,  on 
the  other  hand,  in  respect  to  eloquence,  was  de- 
cidedly inferior  to  the  masterpiece  of  1830.  Mr. 
Curtis  says,  “ Perhaps  there  is  no  speech  ever 
made  by  Mr.  Webster  that  is  so  close  in  its  rea- 
soning, so  compact,  and  so  powerful.”  To  the  first 
two  qualities  we  can  readily  assent,  but  that  it 
was  equally  powerful  may  be  doubted.  So  long 
as  Mr.  Webster  confined  himself  to  defending  the 
Constitution  as  it  actually  was  and  as  what  it  had 
come  to  mean  in  point  of  fact,  he  was  invincible. 
Just  in  proportion  as  he  left  this  ground  and  at- 
tempted to  argue  on  historical  premises  that  it 
was  a fundamental  law,  he  weakened  his  position, 
for  the  historical  facts  were  against  him.  In  the 
reply  to  Hayne  he  touched  but  slightly  on  the 
historical,  legal,  and  theoretical  aspects  of  the 
case,  and  he  was  overwhelming.  In  the  reply  to 
Calhoun  he  devoted  his  strength  chiefly  to  these 
topics,  and,  meeting  his  keen  antagonist  on  the 
latter’s  own  chosen  ground,  he  put  himself  at  a 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  217 

disadvantage.  In  the  actual  present  and  in  the 
steady  course  of  development,  the  facts  were 
wholly  with  Mr.  Webster.  Whatever  the  people 
of  the  United  States  understood  the  Constitu- 
tion to  mean  in  1789,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  a majority  in  1833  regarded  it  as  a funda- 
mental law,  and  not  as  a compact — an  opinion 
which  has  now  become  universal.  But  it  was 
quite  another  thing  to  argue  that  what  the  Con- 
stitution had  come  to  mean  was  what  it  meant 
when  it  was  adopted.  The  identity  of  meaning 
at  these  two  periods  was  the  proposition  which 
Mr.  Webster  undertook  to  maintain,  and  he  up- 
held it  as  well  and  as  plausibly  as  the  nature  of 
the  case  admitted.  His  reasoning  was  close  and 
vigorous ; but  he  could  not  destroy  the  theory  of 
the  Constitution  as  held  by  leaders  and  people  in 
1789,  or  reconcile  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  res- 
olutions or  the  Hartford  Convention  with  the  fun- 
damental-law doctrines.  Nevertheless,  it  would 
be  an  error  to  suppose  that  because  the  facts  of 
history  were  against  Mr.  Webster  in  these  par- 
ticulars, this  able,  ingenious,  and  elaborate  argu- 
ment was  thrown  away.  It  was  a fitting  supple- 
ment and  complement  to  the  reply  to  Hayne.  It 
reiterated  the  national  principles,  and  furnished 
those  whom  the  statement  and  demonstration  of 
an  existing  fact  could  not  satisfy,  with  an  im- 
mense magazine  of  lucid  reasoning  and  plausible 
and  effective  arguments.  The  reply  to  Hayne 


218 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


gave  magnificent  expression  to  the  popular  feeling, 
while  that  to  Calhoun  supplied  the  arguments 
which,  after  years  of  discussion,  converted  that 
feeling  into  a fixed  opinion,  and  made  it  strong 
enough  to  carry  the  North  through  four  years  of 
civil  war.  But  in  his  final  speech  in  this  debate 
Mr.  Webster  came  back  to  his  original  ground,  and 
said,  in  conclusion,  “ Shall  we  have  a general  gov- 
ernment? Shall  we  continue  the  union  of  States 
under  a government  instead  of  a league?  This 
vital  and  all-important  question  the  people  will 
decide.”  The  vital  question  went  to  the  great 
popular  juiy,  and  they  cast  aside  all  historical  pre- 
mises and  deductions,  all  legal  subtleties  and  re- 
finements, and  gave  their  verdict  on  the  existing 
facts.  The  world  knows  what  that  verdict  was, 
and  will  never  forget  that  it  was  largely  due  to  the 
splendid  eloquence  of  Daniel  Webster  when  he  de- 
fended the  cause  of  nationality  against  the  slave- 
holding separatists  of  South  Carolina. 

While  this  great  debate  was  in  progress,  and 
Mr.  Webster  and  the  faithful  adherents  of  Jack- 
son  wei'e  pushing  the  “ Force  Bill  ” to  a vote,  Mr. 
Clay  was  making  every  effort  to  carry  the  com- 
promise tariff.  In  spite  of  his  exertions,  the 
Force  Bill  passed  on  February  20,  but  close  be- 
hind came  the  tariff,  which  Mr.  Webster  opposed, 
on  its  final  passage,  in  a vigorous  speech.  There 
is  no  need  to  enter  into  his  economical  objec- 
tions, but  he  made  his  strongest  stand  against 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON. 


219 


the  policy  of  sacrificing  great  interests  to  soothe 
South  Carolina.  Mr.  Clay  replied,  but  did  not 
then  press  a vote,  for,  with  that  dexterous  man- 
agement which  he  had  exhibited  in  1820  and  was 
again  to  display  in  1850,  he  had  succeeded  in  get- 
ting his  tariff  bill  carried  rapidly  through  the 
House,  in  order  to  obviate  the  objection  that  all 
money  bills  must  originate  in  the  lower  branch. 
The  House  bill  passed  the  Senate,  Mr.  Webster 
voting  against  it,  and  became  law.  There  was  no 
further  need  of  the  Force  Bill.  Clay,  Calhoun, 
even  the  daring  Jackson  ultimatel}7,  were  very 
glad  to  accept  the  easy  escape  offered  by  a com- 
pi’omise.  South  Carolina  had  in  reality  prevailed, 
although  Mr.  Clay  had  saved  protection  in  a 
modified  form.  Her  threats  of  nullification  had 
brought  the  United  States  government  to  terms, 
and  the  doctrines  of  Calhoun  went  home  to  the 
people  of  the  South  with  the  glory  of  substantial 
victory  about  them,  to  breed  and  foster  separatism 
and  secession,  and  prepare  the  way  for  armed  con- 
flict with  the  nobler  spirit  of  nationality  which 
Mr.  Webster  had  roused  in  the  North. 

Speaking  of  Mr.  Webster  at  this  period,  Mr. 
Benton  says : — 

“ He  was  the  colossal  figure  on  the  political  stage 
during  that  eventful  time,  and  his  labors,  splendid  in 
their  day,  survive  for  the  benefit  of  distant  posterity.” 
. . . “ It  was  a splendid  era  in  his  life,  both  for  his  intel- 
lect and  his  patriotism.  No  longer  the  advocate  of 


220 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


classes  or  interests,  lie  appeared  as  the  great  defender 
of  the  Union,  of  the  Constitution,  of  the  country,  and  of 
the  administration  to  which  he  was  opposed.  Released 
from  the  bonds  of  party  and  the  narrow  confines  of  class 
and  corporation  advocacy,  his  colossal  intellect  expanded 
to  its  full  proportions  in  the  field  of  patriotism,  luminous 
with  the  fires  of  genius,  and  commanding  the  homage 
not  of  party  but  of  country.  His  magnificent  harangues 
touched  Jackson  in  his  deepest-seated  and  ruling  feeling, 
love  of  country,  and  brought  forth  the  response  which 
always  came  from  him  when  the  country  was  in  peril 
and  a defender  presented  himself.  He  threw  out  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship,  treated  Mr.  Webster  with 
marked  distinction,  commended  him  with  public  praise, 
and  placed  him  on  the  roll  of  patriots.  And  the  public 
mind  took  the  belief  that  they  were  to  act  together  in 
future,  and  that  a cabinet  appointment  or  a high  mis- 
sion would  be  the  reward  of  his  patriotic  service.  It 
was  a crisis  in  the  life  of  Mr.  Webster.  He  stood  in 
public  opposition  to  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Calhoun.  With 
Mr.  Clay  he  had  a public  outbreak  in  the  Senate.  He 
was  cordial  with  Jackson.  The  mass  of  his  party  stood 
by  him  on  the  proclamation.  He  was  at  a point  from 
which  a new  departure  might  be  taken  : one  at  which 
he  could  not  stand  still ; from  which  there  must  be 
either  advance  or  recoil.  It  was  a case  in  which  will 
more  than  intellect  was  to  rule.  He  was  above  Mr. 
Clay  and  Mr.  Calhoun  in  intellect,  below  them  in  will : 
and  he  was  soon  seen  cooperating  with  them  (Mr.  Clay 
in  the  lead)  in  the  great  measure  condemning  President 
Jackson.” 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  221 

This  is  of  course  the  view  of  a Jacksonian 
leader,  but  it  is  none  the  less  full  of  keen  analysis 
and  comprehension  of  Mr.  Webster,  and  in  some 
respects  embodies  very  well  the  conditions  of  the 
situation.  Mr.  Benton  naturally  did  not  see  that 
an  alliance  with  Jackson  was  utterly  impossible 
for  Mr.  Webster,  whose  proper  course  was  there- 
fore much  less  simple  than  it  appeared  to  the 
Senator  from  Missouri.  There  was  in  reality  no 
common  ground  possible  between  Webster  and 
Jackson  except  defence  of  the  national  integrity. 
Mr.  Webster  was  a great  oratoi’,  a splendid  advo- 
cate, a trained  statesman  and  economist,  a remark- 
able constitutional  lawyer,  and  a man  of  immense 
dignity,  not  headstrong  in  temper  and  without  pe- 
culiar force  of  will.  Jackson,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  a rude  soldier,  unlettered,  intractable,  arbi- 
trary, with  a violent  temper  and  a most  despotic 
will.  Two  men  more  utterly  incompatible  it  would 
have  been  difficult  to  find,  and  nothing  could  have 
been  more  wildly  fantastic  than  to  suppose  an 
alliance  between  them,  or  to  imagine  that  Mr. 
Webster  could  ever  have  done  anything  but  op- 
pose utterly  those  mad  gyrations  of  personal  gov- 
ernment which  the  President  called  his  “ policy.” 

Yet  at  the  same  time  it  is  perfectly  true  that 
just  after  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill  Mr.  Web- 
ster was  at  a great  crisis  in  his  life.  He  could 
not  act  with  Jackson.  That  way  was  shut  to  him 
by  nature,  if  by  nothing  else.  But  he  could  have 


222 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


maintained  liis  position  as  the  independent  and 
unbending  defender  of  nationality  and  as  the  foe 
of  compromise.  He  might  then  have  brought  Mr. 
Clay  to  his  side,  and  remained  himself  the  undis- 
puted head  of  the  Whig  party.  The  coalition  be- 
tween Clay  and  Calhoun  was  a hollow,  ill-omened 
thing,  certain  to  go  violently  to  pieces,  as,  in 
fact,  it  did,  within  a few  years,  and  then  Mr.  Clay, 
if  he  had  held  out  so  long,  would  have  been  help- 
less without  Mr.  Webster.  But  such  a course  re- 
quired a very  strong  will  and  great  tenacity  of  pur- 
pose, and  it  was  on  this  side  that  Mr.  Webster 
was  weak,  as  Mr.  Benton  points  out.  Instead  of 
waiting  for  Mr.  Clay  to  come  to  him,  Mr.  Webster 
went  over  to  Clay  and  Calhoun,  and  formed  for 
a time  the  third  in  that  ill-assorted  partnership. 
There  was  no  reason  for  his  doing  so.  In  fact 
every  good  reason  was  against  it.  Mr.  Clay  had 
come  to  Mr. Webster  with  his  compromise,  and  had 
been  met  with  the  reply  “ that  it  would  be  yielding 
great  principles  to  faction  ; and  that  the  time  had 
come  to  test  the  strength  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
government.”  This  was  a brave,  manly  answer, 
but  Mr.  Clay,  nationalist  as  he  was,  had  straight- 
way deserted  his  friend  and  ally,  and  gone  over  to 
the  separatists  for  support.  Then  a sharp  contest 
had  occurred  between  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Clay 
in  the  debate  on  the  tariff ; and  when  it  was  all 
over,  the  latter  wrote  with  frank  vanity  and  a slight 
tinge  of  contempt:  “Mr.  Webster  and  I came  in 


TEE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON. 


223 


conflict,  and  I have  the  satisfaction  to  tell  you  that 
he  gained  nothing.  My  friends  flatter  me  with 
my  having  completely  triumphed.  There  is  no 
permanent  breach  between  us.  I think  he  be- 
gins already  to  repent  his  course.”  Mr.  Clay  was 
intensely  national,  but  his  theory  of  preserving 
the  Union  was  by  continual  compromise,  or,  in 
other  words,  by  constant  yielding  to  the  aggress- 
ive South.  Mr.  Webster’s  plan  was  to  maintain 
a firm  attitude,  enforce  absolute  submission  to 
all  constitutional  laws,  and  prove  that  agitation 
against  the  Union  could  lead  only  to  defeat.  This 
policy  would  not  have  resulted  in  rebellion,  but,  if 
it  had,  the  hanging  of  Calhoun  and  a few  like  him, 
and  the  military  government  of  South  Carolina, 
by  the  hero  of  New  Orleans,  would  have  taught 
slave-holders  such  a lesson  that  we  should  prob- 
ably have  been  spared  four  years  of  civil  war. 
Peaceful  submission,  however,  would  have  been 
the  sure  outcome  of  Mr.  Webster's  policy.  But  a 
compromise  appealed  as  it  always  does  to  the 
timid,  balance-of-power  party.  Mr.  Clay  pre- 
vailed, and  the  manufacturers  of  New  England,  as 
well  as  elsewhere,  finding  that  he  had  secured  for 
them  the  benefit  of  time  and  of  the  chapter  of 
accidents,  rapidly  came  over  to  his  support.  The 
pressure  was  too  much  for  Mr.  Webster.  Mr.  Clay 
thought  that  if  Mr.  Webster  “had  to  go  over  the 
work  of  the  last  few  weeks  he  would  have  been 
for  the  compromise,  which  commands  the  appro- 


224 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


bation  of  a great  majority.”  Whether  Mr.  Web* 
ster  repented  his  opposition  to  the  compromise  no 
one  can  say,  but  the  change  of  opinion  in  New 
England,  the  general  assent  of  the  Whig  party, 
and  the  dazzling  temptations  of  presidential  can- 
didacy prevailed  with  him.  He  fell  in  behind 
Mr.  Clay,  and  remained  there  in  a party  sense  and 
as  a party  man  for  the  rest  of  his  life. 

The  terrible  prize  of  the  presidency  was  indeed 
again  before  his  eyes.  Mr.  Clay’s  overthrow  at 
the  previous  election  had  removed  him,  for  the 
time  being  at  least,  from  the  list  of  candidates, 
and  thus  freed  Mr.  Webster  from  his  most  danger- 
ous rival.  In  the  summer  of  1833  Mr.  Webster 
made  a tour  through  the  Western  States,  and  was 
received  everywhere  with  enthusiasm,  and  hailed 
as  the  great  expounder  and  defender  of  the  Con- 
stitution. The  following  winter  he  stood  forward 
as  the  preeminent  champion  of  the  Bank  against 
the  President.  Everything  seemed  to  point  to 
him  as  the  natural  candidate  of  the  opposition. 
The  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  nominated  him 
for  the  presidency,  and  he  himself  deeply  desired 
the  office,  for  the  fever  now  burned  strongly 
within  him.  But  the  movement  came  to  nothing. 
The  anti-masonic  schism  still  distracted  the  oppo- 
sition. The  Kentucky  leaders  wei’e  jealous  of  Mr. 
Webster,  and  thought  him  “no  such  man”  as 
their  idol  Henry  Clay.  They  admitted  his  great- 
ness and  his  high  traits  of  character,  but  they 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITlP  JACKSON.  225 

thought  his  ambition  mixed  with  too  much  self- 
love.  Governor  Letcher  wrote  to  Mr.  Crittenden 
in  1836  that  Clay  was  more  elevated,  disinter- 
ested and  patriotic  than  Webster,  and  that  the 
verdict  of  the  country  had  had  a good  effect  on  the 
latter.  Despite  the  interest  and  enthusiasm  which 
Mr.  Webster  aroused  in  the  West,  he  had  no  real 
hold  upon  that  section  or  upon  the  masses  of  the 
people  and  the  Western  Whigs  turned  to  Harri- 
son. There  was  no  hope  in  1836  for  Mr.  Webster, 
or,  for  that  matter,  for  his  party  either.  He  re- 
ceived the  electoral  vote  of  faithful  Massachu- 
setts, and  that  was  all.  As  it  was  then,  so  it  had 
been  at  the  previous  election,  and  so  it  was  to 
continue  to  be  at  the  end  of  every  presidential 
term.  There  never  was  a moment  when  Mr. 
Webster  had  any  real  prospect  of  attaining  to  the 
presidency.  Unfortunately  he  never  could  real- 
ize this.  He  would  have  been  more  than  human, 
perhaps,  if  he  had  done  so.  The  tempting  bait 
hung  always  before  his  eyes.  The  prize  seemed 
to  be  always  just  coming  within  his  reach  and 
was  really  never  near  it.  But  the  longing  had 
entered  his  soul.  He  could  not  rid  himself  of  the 
idea  of  this  final  culmination  to  his  success ; and 
it  warped  his  feelings  and  actions,  injured  his 
career,  and  embittered  his  last  years. 

This  notice  of  the  presidential  election  of  1836 
has  somewhat  anticipated  the  course  of  events. 
Soon  after  the  tariff  compromise  had  been  ef- 
15 


226 


DAI  I EL  WEBSTER. 


fected,  Mr.  Webster  renewed  his  relations  with 
Mr.  Clay,  and,  consequently,  with  Mr.  Calhoun, 
and  their  redoutable  antagonist  in  the  President’s 
chair  soon  gave  them  enough  to  do.  The  most 
immediate  obstacle  to  Mr.  Webster’s  alliance  with 
General  Jackson  was  the  latter's  attitude  in  re- 
gard to  the  bank.  Mr.  W ebster  had  become  sat- 
isfied that  the  bank  was,  on  the  whole,  a useful 
and  even  necessary  institution.  No  one  was  bet- 
ter fitted  than  he  to  decide  on  such  a question,  and 
few  persons  would  now  be  found  to  differ  from  his 
judgment  on  this  point.  In  a general  way  he 
may  be  said  to  have  adopted  the  Hamiltonian  doc- 
trine in  regard  to  the  expediency  and  constitu- 
tionality of  a national  bank.  There  were  intima- 
tions in  the  spring  of  1833  that  the  President, 
not  content  with  preventing  the  re-cliarter  of  the 
bank,  was  planning  to  strike  it  down,  and  practi- 
cally deprive  it  of  even  the  three  years  of  life 
which  still  remained  to  it  by  law.  The  scheme 
was  perfected  during  the  summer,  and,  after 
changing  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  until  he 
got  one  who  would  obey,  President  Jackson  dealt 
his  great  blow.  On  September  26  Mr.  Taney 
signed  the  order  removing  the  deposits  of  the 
government  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States. 
The  result  was  an  immediate  contraction  of  loans, 
commercial  distress,  and  great  confusion. 

The  President  had  thrown  down  the  gage,  and 
the  leaders  of  the  opposition  were  not  slow  to  take 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  227 

it  up.  Mr.  Clay  opened  the  battle  by  introducing 
two  resolutions,  — one  condemning  the  action  of 
the  President  as  unconstitutional,  the  other  attack- 
ing the  policy  of  removal,  and  a long  and  bitter  de- 
bate ensued.  A month  later,  Mr.  Webster  came 
forward  with  resolutions  from  Boston  against  the 
course  of  the  President.  He  presented  the  resolu- 
tions in  a powerful  and  effective  speech,  depicting 
the  deplorable  condition  of  business,  and  the  in- 
jury caused  to  the  country  by  the  removal  of  the 
deposits.  He  rejected  the  idea  of  leaving  the  cur- 
rency to  the  control  of  the  President,  or  of  doing 
away  entirely  with  paper,  and  advocated  the  re- 
charter of  the  present  bank,  or  the  creation  of  a 
new  one ; and,  until  the  time  for  that  should  arrive, 
the  return  of  the  deposits,  with  its  consequent  re- 
lief to  business  and  a restoration  of  stability  and  of 
confidence  for  the  time  being  at  least.  He  soon 
found  that  the  administration  had  determined  that 
no  law  should  be  passed,  and  that  the  doctrine 
that  Congress  had  no  power  to  establish  a bank 
should  be  upheld.  He  also  discovered  that  the 
constitutional  pundit  in  the  White  House,  who 
was  so  opposed  to  a single  national  bank,  had  cre- 
ated, by  his  own  fiat,  a large  number  of  small 
national  banks  in  the  guise  of  state  banks,  to 
which  the  public  deposits  were  committed,  and  the 
collection  of  the  public  revenues  intrusted.  Such 
an  arbitrary  policy,  at  once  so  ignorant,  illogical, 
and  dangerous,  aroused  Mr.  Webster  thoroughly, 


228 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


and  he  entered  immediately  upon  an  active  cam> 
paign  against  the  President.  Between  the  pres- 
entation of  the  Boston  resolutions  and  the  close 
of  the  session  he  spoke  on  the  bank,  and  the  sub- 
jects necessarily  connected  with  it,  no  less  than 
sixty-four  times.  He  dealt  entirely  with  financial 
topics,  — chiefly  those  relating  to  the  currency, 
and  with  the  constitutional  questions  raised  by 
the  extension  of  the  executive  authority.  This 
long  series  of  speeches  is  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able exhibitions  of  intellectual  power  ever  made 
by  Mr.  Webster,  or  indeed  by  any  public  man  in 
our  history.  In  discussing  one  subject  in  all  its 
bearings,  involving  of  necessity  a certain  amount 
of  repetition,  he  not  only  displayed  an  extraordi- 
nary grasp  of  complicated  financial  problems  and 
a wide  knowledge  of  their  scientific  meaning  and 
history,  but  he  showed  an  astonishing  fertility 
in  argument,  coupled  with  great  variety  and  cleai’- 
nessof  statement  and  cogency  of  reasoning.  With 
the  exception  of  Hamilton,  Mr.  Webster  is  the 
only  statesman  in  our  history  who  was  capable  of 
such  a performance  on  such  a subject,  when  a 
thorough  knowledge  had  to  be  united  with  all 
the  resources  of  debate  and  all  the  arts  of  the 
highest  eloquence. 

The  most  important  speech  of  all  was  that  de- 
livered in  answer  to  Jackson’s  “ Protest,”  sent  in 
as  a reply  to  Mr.  Clay’s  resolutions  which  had 
been  sustained  by  Mr.  Webster  as  chairman  of 


TEE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  229 

the  Committee  on  Finance.  The  “ Protest  ” as* 
serted,  in  brief,  that  the  Legislature  could  not 
order  a subordinate  officer  to  perform  certain 
duties  free  from  the  control  of  the  President ; 
that  the  President  had  the  right  to  put  his  own 
conception  of  the  law  into  execution  ; and,  if  the 
subordinate  officer  refused  to  obey,  then  to  remove 
such  officer ; and  that  the  Senate  had  therefore  no 
right  to  censure  his  removal  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  in  order  to  reach  the  government 
deposits.  To  this  doctrine  Mr.  Webster  replied 
with  great  elaboration  and  ability.  The  question 
was  a vei'y  nice  one.  There  could  be  no  doubt  of 
the  President’s  power  of  removal,  and  it  was  neces- 
sary to  show  that  this  power  did  not  extend  to  the 
point  of  depriving  Congress  of  the  right  to  confer 
by  law  specified  and  independent  powers  upon  an 
inferior  officer,  or  of  regulating  the  tenure  of  office. 
To  establish  this  proposition  in  such  a way  as  to 
take  it  out  of  the  thick  and  heated  atmosphere  of 
personal  controversy,  and  put  it  in  a shape  to  carry 
conviction  to  the  popular  understanding,  was  a del- 
icate and  difficult  task,  requiring,  in  the  highest 
degree,  lucidity  and  ingenuity  of  argument.  It  is 
not  too  high  praise  to  say  that  Mr.  Webster  suc- 
ceeded entirely.  The  real  contest  was  for  the 
possession  of  that  debatable  ground  which  lies 
between  the  defined  limits  of  the  executive  and 
legislative  departments.  The  struggle  consoli- 
dated and  gave  coherence  tc  the  Whig  party  as 


230 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


representing  the  opposition  to  executive  encroach- 
ments. At  the  time  Jackson,  by  his  imperious 
will  and  marvellous  personal  popularity,  prevailed 
and  obtained  the  acceptance  of  his  doctrines.  But 
the  conflict  has  gone  on,  and  the  balance  of  ad- 
vantage now  rests  with  the  Legislature.  This 
tendency  is  quite  as  dangerous  as  that  of  which 
Jackson  was  the  exponent,  if  not  more  so.  The 
executive  department  has  been  crippled ; and  the 
influence  and  power  of  Congress,  and  especially  of 
the  Senate,  have  become  far  greater  than  they 
should  be,  under  the  system  of  proportion  and  bal- 
ance embodied  in  the  Constitution.  Despite  Jack- 
son’s victory  there  is,  to-day,  far  more  danger  of 
undue  encroachments  on  the  part  of  the  Senate 
than  on  that  of  the  President. 

- At  the  next  session  the  principal  subject  of  dis- 
cussion was  the  trouble  with  France.  Irritated 
at  the  neglect  of  the  French  government  to  pro- 
vide funds  for  the  payment  of  their  debt  to  us, 
Jackson  sent  in  a message  severely  criticising 
them,  and  recommending  the  passage  of  a law 
authorizing  reprisals  on  French  {property.  The 
President  and  his  immediate  followers  were  eager 
for  war,  Calhoun  and  his  faction  regarded  the 
whole  question  as  only  matter  for  “ an  action  of 
assumpsit,”  while  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Clay  de- 
sired to  avoid  hostilities,  but  wished  the  country 
to  maintain  a firm  and  dignified  attitude.  Under 
the  lead  of  Mr.  Clay,  the  recommendation  of  re- 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  231 

prisals  was  rejected,  and  under  that  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster a clause  smuggled  into  the  Fortification  Bill  to 
give  the  President  three  millions  to  spend  as  he 
liked  was  struck  out  and  the  bill  was  subsequently 
lost.  This  affair,  which  brought  us  to  the  verge 
of  war  with  France,  soon  blew  over,  however,  and 
caused  only  a temporary  ripple,  although  Mr. 
Webster’s  attack  on  the  Fortification  Bill  left  a 
sting  behind. 

In  this  same  session  Mr.  Webster  made  an  ex- 
haustive speech  on  the  question  of  executive  pat- 
ronage and  the  President’s  power  of  appointment 
and  removal.  He  now  went  much  farther  than 
in  his  answer  to  the  “ Protest,”  asserting  not  only 
the  right  of  Congress  to  fix  the  tenure  of  office, 
but  also  that  the  power  of  removal,  like  the  power 
of  appointment,  was  in  the  President  and  Senate 
jointly.  The  speech  contained  much  that  was 
valuable,  but  in  its  main  doctrine  was  radically 
unsound.  The  construction  of  1789,  which  de- 
cided that  the  power  of  removal  belonged  to  the 
President  alone,  was  clearly  right,  and  Mr.  Web- 
ster failed  to  overthrow  it.  His  theory,  embodied 
in  a bill  which  provided  that  the  President  should 
state  to  the  Senate,  when  he  appointed  to  a va- 
cancy caused  by  removal,  his  reasons  for  such 
removal,  was  thoroughly  mischievous.  It  was 
more  dangerous  than  Jackson’s  doctrine,  for  it 
tended  to  take  the  power  of  patronage  still  more 
from  a single  and  responsible  person  and  vest 


232 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


it  in  a large  and  therefore  wholly  irresponsible 
body  which  has  always  been  too  much  inclined  to 
degenerate  into  an  office-broking  oligarchy,  and 
thus  degrade  its  high  and  important  functions. 
Mr.  Webster  argued  his  proposition  with  his  usual 
force  and  perspicuity,  but  the  speech  is  strongly 
partisan  and  exhibits  the  disposition  of  an  advo- 
cate to  fit  the  Constitution  to  his  particular  case, 
instead  of  dealing  with  it  on  general  and  funda- 
mental principles. 

The  session  closed  with  a resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Benton  to  expunge  the  resolutions  of  censure 
upon  the  President,  which  was  overwhelmingly 
defeated,  and  was  then  laid  upon  the  table,  on  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Webster.  He  also  took  the  first  step 
to  prevent  the  impending  financial  disaster  grow- 
ing out  of  the  President’s  course  toward  the  banty 
by  carrying  a bill  to  stop  the  payment  of  treasury 
warrants  by  the  deposit  banks  in  current  bank- 
notes, and  to  compel  their  payment  in  gold  and  sil- 
ver. The  rejection  of  Benton’s  resolutions  served 
to  embitter  the  already  intense  conflict  between 
the  President  and  his  antagonists,  and  Mr.  Web- 
ster's bill,  while  it  showed  the  wisdom  of  the  op- 
position, was  powerless  to  remedy  the  mischief 
which  was  afoot. 

In  this  same  year  (1835)  the  independence  of 
Texas  was  achieved,  and  in  the  session  of  1835- 
36  the  slavery  agitation  began  its  march,  which 
was  only  to  terminate  on  the  field  of  battle  and 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  233 

in  the  midst  of  contending  armies.  Mr.  Web- 
ster's action  at  this  time  in  regard  to  this  great 
question,  which  was  destined  to  have  such  an  effect 
upon  his  career,  can  be  more  fitly  narrated  when 
we  come  to  consider  his  whole  course  in  regard  to 
slavery  in  connection  with  the  “7th  of  March” 
speech.  The  other  matters  of  this  session  demand 
but  a brief  notice.  The  President  animadverted 
in  his  message  upon  the  loss  of  the  Fortification 
Bill,  due  to  the  defeat  of  the  three  million  clause. 
Mr.  Webster  defended  himself  most  conclusively 
and  effectively,  and  before  the  session  closed  the 
difficulties  with  France  were  practically  settled. 
He  also  gave  great  attention  to  the  ever-pressing 
financial  question,  trying  to  mitigate  the  evils 
which  the  rapid  accumulation  of  the  public  funds 
was  threatening  to  produce.  He  felt  that  he 
was  powerless,  that  nothing  indeed  could  be  done 
to  avert  the  approaching  disaster  ; but  he  strug- 
gled to  modify  its  effects  and  delay  its  progress. 

Complications  increased  rapidly  during  the  sum- 
mer. The  famous  “ Specie  Circular,”  issued  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  without  authority 
of  law,  weakened  all  banks  which  did  not  hold  the 
government  deposits,  forced  them  to  contract  their 
loans,  and  completed  the  derangement  of  domestic 
exchange.  This  grave  condition  of  affairs  con- 
fronted Congress  when  it  assembled  in  December, 
1836.  A resolution  was  introduced  to  rescind  the 
Specie  Circular,  and  Mr.  Webster  spoke  at  length 


234 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


in  the  debate,  defining  the  constitutional  duties 
of  the  government  toward  the  regulation  of  the 
currency,  and  discussing  in  a masterly  manner 
the  intricate  questions  of  domestic  exchanges  and 
the  excessive  circulation  of  bank  notes.  On  an- 
other occasion  he  reiterated  his  belief  that  a na- 
tional bank  was  the  true  remedy  for  existing  ills, 
but  that  only  hard  experience  could  convince  the 
country  of  its  necessity. 

At  this  session  the  resolution  to  expunge  the  vote 
of  censure  of  1833  was  again  brought  forward  by 
Mr.  Benton.  The  Senate  had  at  last  come  under 
the  sway  of  the  President,  and  it  was  clear  that 
the  resolution  would  pass.  This  precious  scheme 
belongs  to  the  same  category  of  absurdities  as  the 
placing  Oliver  Cromwell’s  skull  on  Temple  Bar, 
and  throwing  Robert  Blake’s  body  on  a dung-hill 
by  Charles  Stuart  and  his  friends.  It  was  not 
such  a mean  and  cowardly  performance  as  that  of 
the  heroes  of  the  Restoration,  but  it  was  far  more 
“ childish-foolish.”  The  miserable  and  ludicrous 
nature  of  such  a proceeding  disgusted  Mr.  Web- 
ster beyond  measure.  Before  the  vote  was  taken 
he  made  a brief  speech  that  is  a perfect  model  of 
dignified  and  severe  protest  against  a silly  outrage 
upon  the  Constitution  and  upon  the  rights  of  sen- 
ators, which  he  was  totally  unable  to  prevent. 
The  original  censure  is  part  of  history.  No  “black 
lines”  can  take  it  out.  The  expunging  resolution, 
which  Mr.  Curtis  justly  calls  “fantastic  and  the- 


TEE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  235 

atrical,”  is  also  part  of  history,  and  carries  with  it 
the  ineffaceable  stigma  affixed  by  Mr.  Webster’s 
indignant  protest. 

Before  the  close  of  the  session  Mr.  Webster 
made  up  his  mind  to  resign  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 
He  had  private  interests  which  demanded  his  at- 
tention, and  he  wished  to  travel  both  in  the 
United  States  and  in  Europe.  He  may  well  have 
thought,  also,  that  he  could  add  nothing  to  his 
fame  by  remaining  longer  in  the  Senate.  But 
besides  the  natural  craving  for  rest,  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  he  believed  that  a withdrawal  from  active 
and  official  participation  in  politics  was  the  best 
preparation  for  a successful  candidacy  for  the  pres- 
idency in  1840.  This  certainly  was  in  his  mind 
in  the  following  year  (1838),  when  the  rumor  was 
abroad  that  he  was  again  contemplating  retire- 
ment from  the  Senate ; and  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  same  motive  was  at  bottom  the  control- 
ling one  in  1837.  But  whatever  the  cause  of  his 
wish  to  resign,  the  opposition  of  his  friends  every- 
where, and  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
formally  and  strongly  expressed,  led  him  to  forego 
his  purpose.  He  consented  to  hold  his  seat  for 
the  present,  at  least,  and  in  the  summer  of  1837 
made  an  extended  tour  through  the  West,  where 
he  was  received  as  before  with  the  greatest  admi- 
ration and  enthusiasm. 

The  distracted  condition  of  the  still  inchoate 
Whig  party  in  1836,  and  the  extraordinary  popu- 


236 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


larity  of  Jackson,  resulted  in  the  complete  victory 
of  Mr.  Van  Buren.  But  the  General’s  chosen  suc- 
cessor and  political  heir  found  the  great  office  to 
which  he  had  been  called,  and  which  he  so  eagerly 
desired,  anything  but  a bed  of  roses.  The  ruin 
which  Jackson’s  wild  policy  had  prepared  was 
close  at  hand,  and  three  months  after  the  inaugu- 
ration the  storm  burst  with  full  fury.  The  banks 
suspended  specie  payments  and  universal  bank- 
ruptcy reigned  throughout  the  country.  Our 
business  interests  were  in  the  violent  throes  of  the 
worst  financial  panic  which  had  ever  been  known 
in  the  United  States.  The  history  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren’s  administration,  in  its  main  features,  is 
that  of  a vain  struggle  with  a hopeless  network  of 
difficulties,  and  with  the  misfortune  and  prostra- 
tion which  grew  out  of  this  wide-spread  disaster. 
It  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  into  the  details  of 
these  events.  Mr.  Webster  devoted  himself  in 
the  Senate  to  making  every  effort  to  mitigate  the 
evils  which  he  had  prophesied,  and  to  prevent 
their  aggravation  by  further  injudicious  legisla- 
tion. His  most  important  speech  was  delivered 
at  the  special  session  against  the  first  sub-treasury 
bill  and  Mr.  Calhoun’s  amendment.  Mr.  Calhoun, 
who  had  wept  over  the  defeat  of  the  bank  bill  in 
1815,  was  now  convinced  that  all  banks  were  mis- 
takes, and  wished  to  prevent  the  acceptance  of  the 
notes  of  specie  paying  banks  for  government  dues. 
Mr.  Webster’s  speech  was  the  fullest  and  most 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  237 

elaborate  he  ever  made  on  the  subject  of  the  cur- 
rency, and  the  relations  of  the  government  to  it. 
His  theme  was  the  duty  and  right  of  the  general 
government  under  the  Constitution  to  regulate 
and  control  the  currency,  and  his  masterly  argu- 
ment was  the  best  that  has  ever  been  made,  leav- 
ing in  fact  nothing  to  be  desired. 

o o 

In  the  spring  of  1839  there  was  talk  of  sending 
Mr.  Webster  to  London  as  commissioner  to  settle 
the  boundary  disputes,  but  it  came  to  nothing, 
and  in  the  following  summer  he  went  to  England 
in  his  pi’ivate  capacity  accompanied  by  his  family. 
The  visit  was  in  every  way  successful.  It  brought 
rest  and  change  as  well  as  pleasure,  and  was  full 
of  interest.  Mr.  Webster  was  very  well  received, 
much  attention  was  paid  him,  and  much  admira- 
tion shown  for  him.  He  commanded  all  this,  not 
only  by  his  appearance,  his  reputation,  and  his  in- 
tellectual force,  but  still  more  by  the  fact  that 
he  was  thoroughly  and  genuinely  American  in 
thought,  feeling,  and  manner. 

K He  reached  New  York  on  his  return  at  the  end 
of  December,  and  was  there  met  by  the  news  of 
General  Harrison’s  nomination  by  the  Whigs.  In 
the  previous  year  it  had  seemed  as  if,  with  Clay 
out  of  the  way  by  the  defeat  of  1832,  and  Harri- 
son by  that  of  1836,  the  great  prize  must  fall  to 
Mr.  Webster.  His  name  was  brought  forward 
by  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts,  but  it  met  with 
no  response  even  in  New  England.  It  was  the 


238 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


old  story;  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  were  cool,  and 
the  masses  of  the  party  did  not  desire  Mr.  Web- 
ster. The  convention  turned  from  the  Massachu- 
setts statesman  and  again  nominated  the  old  West- 
ern soldier. 

Mr.  Webster  did  not  hesitate  as  to  the  course 
he  should  pursue  upon  his  return.  He  had  been 
reelected  to  the  Senate  in  January,  1839,  and  after 
the  session  closed  in  July,  1840,  he  threw  himself 
into  the  campaign  in  support  of  Harrison.  The 
people  did  not  desire  Mr.  Webster  to  be  their 
President,  but  there  was  no  one  whom  they  so 
much  wished  to  hear.  He  was  besieged  from  all 
parts  of  the  country  with  invitations  to  speak, 
and  he  answered  generously  to  the  call  thus  made 
upon  him. 

On  his  way  home  from  Washington,  in  March, 
1837,  more  than  three  years  before,  he  had  made 
a speech  at  Niblo’s  Garden  in  New  York,  — the 
greatest  purely  political  speech  which  he  ever  de- 
livered. He  then  reviewed  and  arraigned  with 
the  greatest  severity  the  history  of  Jackson’s  ad- 
ministration, abstaining  in  his  characteristic  way 
from  all  personal  attack,  but  showing,  as  no  one 
else  could  show,  what  had  been  done,  and  the  re- 
sults of  the  policy,  which  were  developing  as  he 
had  predicted.  He  also  said  that  the  worst  was 
yet  to  come.  The  speech  produced  a profound 
impression.  People  were  still  reading  it  when 
the  worst  really  came,  and  the  great  panic  broke 


THE  STRUGGLE  WITH  JACKSON.  239 

oyer  the  country.  Mr.  Webster  had,  in  fact, 
struck  the  key-note  of  the  coming  campaign  in 
the  Niblo-Garden  speech  of  1837.  In  the  sum- 
mer of  1840  he  spoke  in  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia,  and  was  almost 
continually  upon  the  platform.  The  great  feat 
of  1833-34,  when  he  made  sixty-four  speeches  in 
the  Senate  on  the  bank  question,  was  now  repeated 
under  much  more  difficult  conditions.  In  the  first 
instance  he  was  addressing  a small  and  select 
body  of  trained  listeners,  all  more  or  less  familiar 
with  the  subject.  In  1840  he  was  obliged  to  pre- 
sent these  same  topics,  with  all  their  infinite  detail 
and  inherent  dryness,  to  vast  popular  audiences, 
but  nevertheless  he  achieved  a marvellous  success. 
The  chief  points  which  he  brought  out  were  the 
condition  of  the  currency,  the  need  of  govern- 
ment regulation,  the  responsibility  of  the  Dem- 
ocrats, the  miserable  condition  of  the  country,  and 
the  exact  fulfillment  of  the  prophecies  he  had 
made.  The  argument  and  the  conclusion  were 
alike  irresistible,  but  Mr.  Webster  showed,  in 
handling  his  subject,  not  only  the  variety,  rich- 
ness, and  force  which  he  had  displayed  in  the 
Senate,  but  the  capacity  of  presenting  it  in  a 
way  thoroughly  adapted  to  the  popular  mind, 
and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  of  preserving  the  im- 
pressive tone  of  a dignified  statesman,  without 
any  degeneration  into  mere  stump  oratory.  This 
wonderful  series  of  speeches  produced  the  great- 


240 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


est  possible  effect.  They  were  heard  by  thou- 
sands and  read  by  tens  of  thousands.  They  fell, 
of  course,  upon  willing  ears.  The  people,  smarting 
under  bankruptcy,  poverty,  and  business  depression, 
were  wild  for  a change ; but  nothing  did  so  much 
to  swell  the  volume  of  public  resentment  against 
the  policy  of  the  ruling  party  as  these  speeches 
of  Mr.  Webster,  which  gave  character  and  form 
to  the  whole  movement.  Jackson  had  sown  the 
wind,  and  his  unlucky  successor  was  engaged  in 
the  agreeable  task  of  reaping  the  proverbial  crop. 
There  was  a political  revolution.  The  Whigs 
swept  the  country  by  an  immense  majority,  the 
great  Democi’atic  party  was  crushed  to  the  earth, 
and  the  ignorant  misgovernment  of  Andrew  Jack- 
son  found  at  last  its  fit  reward.  General  Harri- 
son, as  soon  as  he  was  elected,  turned  to  the  two 
great  chiefs  of  his  party  to  invite  them  to  become 
the  pillars  of  his  administration.  Mr.  Clay  de- 
clined any  cabinet  office,  but  Mr.  Webster,  after 
some  hesitation,  accepted  the  secretaryship  of  state. 
He  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate  February  22, 
1841,  and  on  March  4 following  took  his  place  in 
the  cabinet,  and  entered  upon  a new  field  of  public 
service. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE.  — THE  ASHBURTON 
TREATY. 

There  is  one  feature  in  the  history,  or  rather 
in  the  historic  scenery  of  this  period,  which  we 
are  apt  to  overlook.  The  political  questions,  the 
debates,  the  eloquence  of  that  day,  give  us  no  idea 
of  the  city  in  which  the  history  was  made,  or  of 
the  life  led  by  the  men  who  figured  in  that  history. 
Their  speeches  might  have  been  delivered  in  any 
great  centre  of  civilization,  and  in  the  midst  of 
a brilliant  and  luxurious  society.  But  the  Wash- 
ington of  1841,  when  Mr.  Webster  took  the  post 
which  is  officially  the  first  in  the  society  of  the 
capital  and  of  the  country,  was  a very  odd  sort  of 
place,  and  widely  different  from  what  it  is  to-day. 
It  was  not  a village,  neither  was  it  a city.  It  had 
not  grown,  but  had  been  created  for  a special  pur- 
pose. A site  had  been  arbitrarily  selected,  and  a 
city  laid  out  on  the  most  magnificent  scale.  But 
there  was  no  independent  life,  for  the  city  was 
wholly  official  in  its  purposes  and  its  existence. 
There  were  a few  great  public  buildings,  a few 
large  private  houses,  a few  hotels  and  boarding 
16 


242 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


houses,  and  a large  number  of  negro  shanties. 
The  general  effect  was  of  attempted  splendor, 
which  had  resulted  in  slovenliness  and  straggling 
confusion.  The  streets  were  un paved,  dusty  in 
summer,  and  deep  with  mud  in  winter,  so  that  the 
mere  difficulty  of  getting  from  place  to  place  was 
a serious  obstacle  to  general  society.  Cattle  fed 
in  the  streets,  and  were  milked  by  their  owners  on 
the  sidewalk.  There  Avas  a grotesque  contrast  be- 
tween the  stately  capitol  where  momentous  ques- 
tions were  eloquently  discussed  and  such  queerly 
primitive  and  rude  surroundings.  Few  persons 
were  able  to  entertain  because  few  persons  had 
suitable  houses.  Members  of  Congress  usually 
clubbed  together  and  took  possession  of  a house, 
and  these  “ messes,”  as  they  were  called,  — al- 
though without  doubt  very  agreeable  to  their 
members,  — did  not  offer  a mode  of  life  which 
was  easily  compatible  with  the  demands  of  general 
society.  Social  enjoyments,  therefore,  were  pur- 
sued under  difficulties  ; and  the  city,  although  im- 
proving, was  dreary  enough. 

Society,  too,  was  in  a bad  condition.  The  old 
forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  men  of  1789  and  the 
manners  and  breeding  of  our  earliest  generation  of 
statesmen  had  passed  away,  and  the  new  democ- 
racy had  not  as  yet  a system  of  its  own.  It  was  a 
period  of  transition.  The  old  customs  had  gone, 
the  new  ones  had  not  crystallized.  The  civiliza- 
tion Avas  crude  and  raw,  and  in  Washington  had 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


243 


no  background  whatever,  — suck  as  was  to  be 
found  in  the  old  cities  and  towns  of  the  original 
thirteen  States.  The  tone  of  the  men  in  public 
life  had  deteriorated  and  was  growing  worse,  ap- 
proaching rapidly  its  lowest  point,  which  it  reached 
dui'ine:  the  Polk  administration.  This  was  due 
partly  to  the  Jacksonian  democracy,  which  had 
rejected  training  and  education  as  necessary  to 
statesmanship,  and  had  loudly  proclaimed  the 
great  truths  of  rotation  in  office,  and  the  spoils  to 
the  victors,  and  partly  to  the  slavery  agitation 
which  was  then  beginning  to  make  itself  felt. 
The  rise  of  the  irrepressible  conflict  between  free- 
dom and  slavery  made  the  South  overbearing  and 
truculent ; it  produced  that  class  of  politicians 
known  as  “Northern  men  with  Southern  prin- 
ciples,” or,  in  the  slang  of  the  day,  as  “ dough- 
faces ; ” and  it  had  not  yet  built  up  a strong,  vigor- 
ous, and  aggressive  party  in  the  North.  The  lack 
of  proper  social  opportunities,  and  this  deteriora- 
tion among  men  in  public  life,  led  to  an  increasing 
violence  and  roughness  in  debate,  and  to  a good 
deal  of  coarse  dissipation  in  private.  There  was 
undoubtedly  a brighter  side,  but  it  was  limited, 
and  the  surroundings  of  the  distinguished  men 
who  led  our  political  parties  in  1841  at  the 
national  capital,  do  not  present  a very  cheerful 
or  attractive  picture. 

When  the  new  President  appeared  upon  the 
scene  he  was  followed  by  a general  rush  of  hungry 


244 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


office-seekers,  who  had  been  starving  for  places 
for  many  years.  General  Harrison  was  a brave, 
honest  soldier  and  pioneer,  simple  in  heart  and 
manners,  unspoiled  and  untaught  by  politics  of 
which  he  had  had  a good  share.  He  was  not  a 
great  man,  but  he  was  honorable  and  well  inten- 
tioned.  He  wished  to  have  about  him  the  best 
and  ablest  men  of  his  party,  and  to  trust  to  their 
guidance  for  a successful  administration.  But 
although  he  had  no  desire  to  invent  a policy,  or  to 
draft  state  papers,  he  was  determined  to  be  the 
author  of  his  own  inaugural  speech,  and  he  came 
to  Washington  with  a carefully-prepared  manu- 
script in  his  pocket.  When  Mr.  Webster  read 
this  document  he  found  it  full  of  gratitude  to  the 
people,  and  abounding  in  allusions  to  Roman  his- 
tory. With  his  strong  sense  of  humor,  and  of  the 
unities  and  proprieties  as  well,  he  was  a.  good  deal 
alarmed  at  the  proposed  speech ; and  after  much 
labor,  and  the  expenditure  of  a good  deal  of  tact, 
he  succeeded  in  effecting  some  important  changes 
and  additions.  When  he  came  home  in  the  even- 
ing, Mrs.  Seaton,  at  whose  house  he  was  staying, 
remarked  that  he  looked  worried  and  fatigued, 
and  asked  if  anything  had  happened.  Mr.  Web- 
ster replied,  “You  would  think  that  something 
had  happened  if  you  knew  what  I have  done.  I 
have  killed  seventeen  Roman  proconsuls.”  It  was 
a terrible  slaughter  for  poor  Harrison,  for  the  pro- 
consuls  were  probably  very  dear  to  his  heart.  His 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


245 


youth  had  been  passed  in  the  time  when  the 
pseudo  classicism  of  the  French  Republic  and  Em- 
pire was  rampant,  and  now  that,  in  his  old  age,  lie 
had  been  raised  to  the  presidency,  his  head  was 
probably  full  of  the  republics  of  antiquity,  and  of 
Cincinnatus  called  from  the  plough  to  take  the 
helm  of  state. 

M.  de  Bacourt,  the  French  minister  at  this  pe- 
riod, a rather  shallow  and  illiberal  man  who  dis- 
liked Mr.  Webster,  gives,  in  his  recently  published 
correspondence,  the  following  amusing  account  of 
the  presentation  of  the  diplomatic  corps  to  Pres- 
ident Harrison,  — a little  bit  of  contemporary  gos- 
sip which  carries  us  back  to  those  days  better  than 
anything  else  could  possibly  do.  The  diplomatic 
corps  assembled  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Fox,  the 
British  minister,  who  was  to  read  a speech  in 
behalf  of  the  whole  body,  and  thence  proceeded 
to  the  White  House  where 

“ the  new  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Webster,  who  is 
much  embarrassed  by  his  new  functions,  came  to  make 
his  arrangements  with  Mr.  Fox.  This  done,  we  were 
ranged  along  the  wall  in  order  of  seniority,  and  after  too 
long  a delay  for  a country  where  the  chief  magistrate 
has  no  right  to  keep  people  waiting,  the  old  General  came 
in,  followed  by  all  the  members  of  his  Cabinet,  who 
walked  in  single  file,  and  so  kept  behind  him.  He  then 
advanced  toward  Mr.  Fox,  whom  Mr.  Webster  presented 
to  him.  Mr.  Fox  read  to  him  his  address.  Then  the 
President  took  out  his  spectacles  and  read  his  reply. 


246 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Then,  after  having  shaken  hands  with  the  English 
minister,  he  walked  from  one  end  of  our  line  to  the 
other,  Mr.  Webster  presenting  each  of  us  by  name,  and 
he  shaking  hands  with  each  one  without  saying  a word. 
This  ceremony  finished  he  returned  to  the  room  whence 
he  had  come,  and  reappeared  with  Mrs.  Harrison  — the 
widow  of  his  eldest  son  — upon  his  arm,  whom  he  pre- 
sented to  the  diplomatic  corps  en  masse.  Mr.  Webster, 
who  followed,  then  presented  to  us  Mrs.  Finley,  the 
mother  of  this  Mrs.  Harrison,  in  the  following  terms  : 

‘ Gentlemen,  I introduce  to  you  Mrs.  Finley,  the  lady 
who  attends  Mrs.  Harrison  ; ’ and  observe  that  this  good 
lady  who  attends  the  others  — takes  care  of  them  — is 
blind.  Then  all  at  once,  a crowd  of  people  rushed  into 
the  room.  They  were  the  wives,  sisters,  daughters, 
cousins,  and  lady  friends  of  the  President  and  of  all  his 
ministers,  who  were  presented  to  us,  and  vice  versa , in 
the  midst  of  an  inconceivable  confusion.” 

Fond,  however,  as  Mr.  Webster  was  of  society, 
and  punctilious  as  he  was  in  matters  of  etiquette 
and  propriety,  M.  de  Bacourt  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, he  had  far  more  important  duties  to 
perform  than  those  of  playing  host  and  receiving 
foreign  ministers.  Our  relations  with  England 
when  he  entered  the  cabinet  were  such  as  to  make 
war  seem  almost  inevitable.  The  northeastern 
boundary,  undetermined  by  the  treaty  of  1783, 
had  been  the  subject  of  continual  and  fruitless  ne- 
gotiation ever  since  that  time,  and'  was  still  unset- 
tled and  more  complicated  than  ever.  It  was 
agreed  that  there  should  be  a new  survey  and  a 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


247 


new  arbitration,  but  no  agreement  could  be  reached 
as  to  who  should  arbitrate  or  what  questions 
should  be  submitted  to  the  arbitrators,  and  the 
temporary  arrangements  for  the  possession  of  the 
territory  in  dispute  were  unsatisfactory  and  pre- 
carious. Much  more  exciting  and  perilous  than 
this  old  difficulty  was  a new  one  and  its  conse- 
quences growing  out  of  the  Canadian  rebellion  in 
1887.  Certain  of  the  rebels  fled  to  the  United 
States,  and  there,  in  conjunction  with  American 
citizens,  prepared  to  make  incursions  into  Can- 
ada. For  this  purpose  they  fitted  out  an  Amer- 
ican steamboat,  the  Caroline.  An  expedition 
from  Canada  crossed  the  Niagara  River  to  the 
American  shore,  set  fire  to  the  Caroline,  and 
let  her  drift  over  the  Falls.  In  the  fray  which 
occurred,  an  American  named  Durfree  was  killed. 
The  British  government  avowed  this  invasion  to 
be  a public  act  and  a necessary  measure  of  self- 
defence ; but  it  was  a question  when  Mr.  Van 
Buren  went  out  of  office  whether  this  avowal  had 
been  made  in  an  authentic  manner.  There  was 
another  incident,  however,  also  growing  out  of 
this  affair,  even  more  irritating  and  threatening 
than  the  invasion  itself.  In  November,  1840,  one 
Alexander  McLeod  came  from  Canada  to  New 
York,  where  he  boasted  that  he  was  the  slayer  of 
Durfree,  and  thereupon  was  at  once  arrested  on  a 
charge  of  murder  and  thrown  into  prison.  This 
aroused  great  anger  in  England,  and  the  convic- 


248 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


tion  of  McLeod  was  all  that  was  needed  to  cause 
immediate  war.  In  addition  to  these  complica- 
tions was  the  question  of  the  right  of  search  for 
the  impressment  of  British  seamen  and  for  the 
suppression  of  the  slave-trade.  Our  government 
was,  of  course,  greatly  hampered  in  action  by  the 
rights  of  Maine  and  Massachusetts  on  the  north- 
eastern boundary,  and  by  the  fact  that  McLeod 
was  within  the  jurisdiction  and  in  the  power  of 
the  New  York  courts,  and  wholly  out  of  reach  of 
those  of  the  United  States.  The  character  of  the 
national  representatives  on  both  sides  in  London 
tended,  moreover,  to  aggravate  the  growing  irrita- 
tion between  the  two  countries.  Lord  Palmerston 
was  sharp  and  domineering,  and  Mr.  Stevenson, 
our  minister,  was  by  no  means  mild  or  concilia- 
tory. Between  them  they  did  what  they  could  to 
render  accommodation  impossible. 

To  evolve  a satisfactory  and  permanent  peace 
from  these  conditions  was  the  task  which  con- 
fronted Mr.  Webster,  and  he  was  hardly  in  office 
before  he  received  a demand  from  Mr.  Fox  for  the 
release  of  McLeod,  in  which  full  avowal  was  made 
that  the  burning  of  the  Caroline  was  a public 
act.  Mr.  Webster  determined  that  the  proper 
method  of  settling  the  boundary  question,  when 
that  subject  should  be  reached,  was  to  agree  upon 
a conventional  and  arbitrary  line,  and  that  in  the 
mean  time  the  only  way  to  dispose  of  McLeod  was 
to  get  him  out  of  prison,  separate  him,  diplomats 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


249 


cally  speaking,  from  the  affair  of  the  Caroline, 
and  then  take  that  up  as  a distinct  matter  for 
negotiation  with  the  British  government.  The 
difficulty  in  regard  to  McLeod  was  the  most 
pressing,  and  so  to  that  he  gave  his  immediate  at- 
tention. His  first  step  was  to  instruct  the  Attor- 
ney-General to  proceed  to  Lockport,  where  McLeod 
was  imprisoned,  and  communicate  with  the  coun- 
sel for  the  defence,  furnishing  them  with  authen- 
tic information  that  the  destruction  of  the  Caro- 
line }vas  a public  act,  and  that  therefore  McLeod 
could  not  be  held  responsible. . He  then  replied 
to  the  British  minister  that  McLeod  could,  of 
course,  be  released  only  by  judicial  process,  but 
he  also  informed  Mr.  Foi  of  the  steps  which  had 
been  taken  by  the  administration  to  assure  the 
prisoner  a complete  defence  based  on  the  avowal 
of  the  British  government  that  the  attack  on  the 
Caroline  was  a public  act.  This  threw  the  re- 
sponsibility for  McLeod,  and  for  consequent  peace 
or  war,  where  it  belonged,  on  the  New  York  au- 
thorities, who  seemed,  however,  but  little  inclined 
to  assist  the  general  government.  McLeod  came 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  in  July, 
on  a writ  of  habeas  corpus , but  they  refused  to 
release  him  on  the  grounds  set  forth  in  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s instructions  to  the  Attorney-General,  and 
he  was  remanded  for  trial  in  October,  which  was 
highly  embarrassing  to  our  government,  as  it  kept 
this  dangerous  affair  open. 


250 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


But  this  and  all  other  embarrassments  to  the 
Secretary  of  State  sank  into  insignificance  beside 
those  caused  him  by  the  troubles  in  his  own  polit- 
ical party.  Between  the  time  of  the  instructions 
to  the  Attorney-General  and  that  of  the  letter  to 
Mr.  Fox,  President  Harrison  died,  after  only  a 
month  of  office.  Mr.  Tyler,  of  whose  views  but 
little  was  known,  at  once  succeeded,  and  made  no 
change  in  the  cabinet  of  his  predecessor.  On  the 
last  day  of  Ma}',  Congress,  called  in  extra  session 
by  President  Harrison,  convened.  A bill  estab- 
lishing a bank  was  passed,  and  Mr.  Tyler  vetoed 
it  on  account  of  constitutional  objections  to  some 
of  its  features.  The  triumphant  Whigs  were  filled 
with  wrath  at  this  unlooked-for  check.  Mr.  Clay 
reflected  on  the  President  with  great  severity  in 
the  Senate,  the  members  of  the  party  in  the  House 
were  very  violent  in  their  expressions  of  disap- 
proval, and  another  measure,  known  as  the  “ Fis- 
cal Corporation  Act,”  was  at  once  prepared.  Mr. 
Webster  regarded  this  state  of  affairs  with  great 
anxiety  and  alarm.  He  said  that  such  a contest, 
if  persisted  in,  would  ruin  the  party  and  deprive 
them  of  the  fruits  of  their  victory,  besides  im- 
perilling the  important  foreign  policy  then  just 
initiated.  He  strove  to  allay  the  excitement,  and 
resisted  the  passage  of  any  new  bank  measure, 
much  as  he  wished  the  establishment  of  such  an 
institution,  advising  postponement  and  delay  for 
the  sake  of  procuring  harmony  if  possible.  But 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


251 


the  party  in  Congress  would  not  be  quieted.  They 
were  determined  to  force  Mr.  Tyler's  hand  at  all 
hazards,  and  while  the  new  bill  was  pending,  Mr. 
Clay,  stung  by  the  taunts  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  made 
a savage  attack  upon  the  President.  As  a natural 
consequence,  the  “ Fiscal  Corporation  ” scheme 
shared  the  fate  of  its  predecessor.  The  breach 
between  the  President  and  his  party  was  opened 
irreparably,  and  four  members  of  the  cabinet  at 
once  resigned.  Mr.  Webster  was  averse  to  be- 
coming a party  to  an  obvious  combination  between 
the  Senate  and  the  cabinet  to  harass  the  Presi- 
dent, and  he  was  determined  not  to  sacrifice  the 
success  of  his  foreign  negotiations  to  a political 
quarrel.  He  therefore  resolved  to  remain  in  the 
cabinet  for  the  present,  at  least,  and,  after  con- 
sulting the  Massachusetts  delegation  in  Congress, 
who  fully  approved  his  course,  he  announced  his 
decision  to  the  public  in  a letter  to  the  “ National 
Intelligencer.”  His  action  soon  became  the  sub- 
ject of  much  adverse  criticism  from  the  Whigs, 
but  at  this  day  no  one  would  question  that  he  was 
entirely  right.  It  was  not  such  an  easy  thing  to 
do,  however,  as  it  now  appears,  for  the  excitement 
was  running  high  among  the  Whigs,  and  there 
was  great  bitterness  of  feeling  toward  the  Pres- 
ident. Mr.  Webster  behaved  in  an  independent 
and  patriotic  manner,  showing  a liberality  of  spirit, 
a breadth  of  view,  and  a courage  of  opinion  which 
entitle  him  to  the  greatest  credit. 


252 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Events,  which  had  seemed  thus  far  to  go  steadily 
against  him  in  his  negotiations,  and  which  had 
been  supplemented  by  the  attacks  of  the  opposi- 
tion in  Congress  for  his  alleged  interference  with 
the  course  of  justice  in  New  York,  now  began  to 
turn  in  his  favor.  The  news  of  the  refusal  of  the 
New  York  court  to  release  McLeod  on  a habeas 
corpus  had  hardly  reached  England  when  the 
Melbourne  ministry  was  beaten  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  Sir  Robert  Peel  came  in,  bringing 
with  him  Lord  Aberdeen  as  the  successor  of  Lord 
Palmerston  in  the  department  of  foreign  affairs. 
The  new  ministry  was  disposed  to  be  much  more 
peaceful  than  their  predecessors  had  been,  and  the 
negotiations  at  once  began  to  move  more  smoothly. 
Great  care  was  still  necessary  to  prevent  outbreaks 
on  the  border,  but  in  October  McLeod  proved  an 
alibi  and  was  acquitted,  and  thus  the  most  danger- 
ous element  in  our  relations  with  England  was 
removed.  Matters  were  still  further  improved  by 
the  retirement  of  Mr.  Stevenson,  whose  successor 
in  London  was  Mr.  Everett,  eminently  concilia- 
tory in  disposition  and  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  Webster  was  now  able  to  turn  his  undi- 
vided attention  to  the  long-standing  boundary 
question.  His  proposition  to  agree  upon  a con- 
ventional line  had  been  made  known  by  Mr.  Fox 
to  his  government,  and  soon  afterwards  Mr.  Ever- 
ett was  informed  that  Lord  Ashburton  would  be 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


253 


sent  to  Washington  on  a special  mission.  The 
selection  of  an  envoy  well  known  for  his  friendly 
feeling  toward  the  United  States,  which  was  also 
traditional  with  the  great  banking-house  of  his 
family,  was  in  itself  a pledge  of  conciliation  and 
good  will.  Lord  Ashburton  reached  Washing- 
ton in  April,  1842,  and  the  negotiation  at  once 
began. 

It  is  impossible  and  needless  to  give  here  a de- 
tailed account  of  that  negotiation.  We  can  only 
glance  briefly  at  the  steps  taken  by  Mr.  Webster 
and  at  the  results  achieved  by  him.  There  were 
many  difficulties  to  be  overcome,  and  in  the  win- 
ter of  1841-42  the  case  of  the  Creole  added  a 
fresh  and  dangerous  complication.  The  Creole 
was  a slave-ship,  on  which  the  negroes  had  risen, 
and,  taking  possession,  had  carried  her  into  an 
English  port  in  the  West  Indies,  where  assist- 
ance was  refused  to  the  crew,  and  where  the  slaves 
were  allowed  to  go  free.  This  was  an  act  of  very 
doubtful  legality,  it  touched  both  England  and 
the  Southern  States  in  a very  sensitive  point,  and 
it  required  all  Mr.  Webster’s  tact  and  judgment  to 
keep  it  out  of  the  negotiation  until  the  main  issue 
had  been  settled. 

The  principal  obstacle  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  boundary  dispute  arose  from  the  interests  and 
the  attitude  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine.  Mr. 
Webster  obtained  with  sufficient  ease  the  appoint- 
ment of  commissioners  from  the  former  State,  and, 


254 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Sparks,  who  was  sent 
to  Augusta  for  the  purpose,  commissioners  were 
also  appointed  in  Maine  ; but  these  last  were  in- 
structed to  adhere  to  the  line  of  1783  as  claimed 
by  the  United  States.  Lord  Ashburton  and  Mr. 
Webster  readily  agreed  that  a treaty  must  come 
from  mutual  conciliation  and  compromise ; but, 
after  a good  deal  of  correspondence,  it  became  ap- 
parent that  the  Maine  commissioners  and  the  Eng- 
lish envoy  could  not  be  brought  to  an  agreement. 
A dead-lock  and  consequent  loss  of  the  treaty  were 
imminent.  Mr.  Webster  then  had  a long  inter- 
view with  Lord  Ashburton.  By  a process  of  give 
and  take  they  agreed  on  a conventional  line  and 
on  the  concession  of  certain  rights,  which  made  a 
fair  bargain,  but  unluckily  the  loss  was  suffered  by 
Maine  and  Massachusetts,  while  the  benefits  re- 
ceived by  the  United  States  accrued  to  New  York, 
Vermont,  and  New  Hampshire.  This  brought  the 
negotiators  to  the  point  at  which  they  had  already 
been  forced  to  halt  so  many  times  before.  Mr. 
Webster  now  cut  the  knot  by  proposing  that  the 
United  States  should  indemnify  Maine  and  Massa- 
chusetts in  money  for  the  loss  they  were  to  suffer 
in  territory,  and  by  his  dexterous  management  the 
commissioners  of  the  two  States  were  persuaded  to 
assent  to  this  arrangement,  while  Lord  Ashburton 
was  induced  to  admit  the  agreement  into  a clause 
of  the  treaty.  This  disposed  of  the  chief  ques- 
tion in  dispute,  but  two  other  subjects  were  in- 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


255 


eluded  in  the  treaty  besides  the  boundary.  The 
first  related  to  the  right  of  search  claimed  by  Eng- 
land for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade.  This 
was  met  by  what  was  called  the  “ Cruising  Con- 
vention,” a clause  which  stipulated  that  each  na- 
tion should  keep  its  own  squadron  on  the  coast  of 
Africa,  to  enforce  separately  its  own  laws  against 
the  slave-trade,  but  in  mutual  cooperation.  The 
other  subject  of  agreement  grew  out  of  the  Creole 
case.  England  supposed  that  we  sought  the  re- 
turn of  the  negroes  because  they  were  slaves,  but 
Mr.  Webster  argued  that  they  were  demanded  as 
mutineers  and  murderers.  The  result  was  an  ar- 
ticle which,  while  it  carefully  avoided  even  the 
appearance  of  an  attempt  to  bind  England  to  re- 
turn fugitive  slaves,  provided  amply  for  the  extra- 
dition of  criminals.  The  case  of  the  Caroline 
was  disposed  of  by  a formal  admission  of  the 
inviolability  of  national  territory  and  by  an  apol- 
ogy for  the  burning  of  the  steamboat.  As  to  the 
action  in  regard  to  the  slaves  on  the  Creole, 
Mr.  Webster  could  only  obtain  the  assurance  that 
there  should  be  “ no  officious  interference  with 
American  vessels  driven  by  accident  or  violence 
into  British  ports,”  and  with  this  he  was  content 
to  let  the  matter  drop.  On  the  subject  of  impress- 
ment, the  old  casus  belli  of  1812,  Mr.  Webster 
wrote  a forcible  letter  to  Lord  Ashburton.  In  it 
he  said  that,  in  future,  “in  every  regularly-docu- 
mented American  merchant  vessel,  the  crew  who 


256 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


navigate  it  will  find  their  protection  in  the  flag 
which  is  over  them.”  In  other  words,  if  you  take 
sailors  out  of  our  vessels,  we  shall  fight ; and  this 
simple  statement  of  fact  ended  the  whole  matter 
and  was  quite  as  binding  on  England  as  any  treaty 
could  have  been. 

Thus  the  negotiation  closed.  The  only  serious 
objection  to  its  results  was  that  the  interests  of 
Maine  were  sacrificed  perhaps  unduly,  — as  a re- 
cent discussion  of  that  point  seems  to  show. 
But  such  a sacrifice  was  fully  justified  by  what 
was  achieved.  A war  was  averted,  a long  stand- 
ing and  menacing  dispute  was  settled,  and  a treaty 
was  concluded  which  was  creditable  and  honorable 
to  all  concerned.  By  his  successful  introduction 
of  the  extradition  clause,  Mr.  Webster  rendered 
a great  service  to  civilization  and  to  the  suppres- 
sion and  punishment  of  crime.  Mr.  Webster  was 
greatly  aided  throughout  — both  in  his  arguments, 
and  in  the  construction  of  the  treaty  itself  — by 
the  learned  and  valuable  assistance  freely  given 
by  Judge  Story.  But  he  conducted  the  whole 
negotiation  with  great  ability  and  in  the  spirit  of  a 
liberal  and  enlightened  statesman.  He  displayed 
the  highest  tact  and  dexterity  in  reconciling  so 
many  clashing  interests,  and  avoiding  so  many 
perilous  side  issues,  until  he  had  brought  the 
main  problem  to  a solution.  In  all  that  he  did 
and  said  he  showed  a dignity  and  an  entire  suffi- 
ciency, which  make  this  negotiation  one  of  the 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


257 


most  creditable  — so  far  as  its  conduct  was  con- 
cerned— in  which  the  United  States  ever  en- 
gaged. 

While  the  negotiation  was  in  progress  there  was 
a constant  murmur  among  the  Whigs  about  Mr. 
Webster’s  remaining  in  the  cabinet,  and  as  soon 
as  the  treaty  was  actually  signed  a loud  clamor 
began  — both  among  the  politicians  and  in  the 
newspapers  — for  his  resignation.  In  the  midst 
of  this  outcry  the  Senate  met  and  ratified  the 
treaty  by  a vote  of  thirty-nine  to  nine,  — a great 
triumph  for  its  author.  But  the  debate  disclosed 
a vigorous  opposition,  Benton  and  Buchanan  both 
assailing  Mr.  Webster  for  neglecting  and  sacrificing 
American,  and  particularly  Southern,  interests.  At 
the  same  time  the  controversy  which  Mr.  Webster 
called  “ the  battle  of  the  maps,”  and  which  was 
made  a great  deal  of  in  England,  began  to  show 
itself.  A map  of  1783,  which  Mr.  Webster  ob- 
tained, had  been  discovered  in  Paris,  sustaining 
the  English  view,  while  another  was  afterwards 
found  in  London,  supporting  the  American  claim. 
Neither  was  of  the  least  consequence,  as  the  new 
line  was  conventional  and  arbitrary ; but  the  dis- 
coveries caused  a great  deal  of  unreasonable  ex- 
citement. Mr.  Webster  saw  very  plainly  that  the 
treaty  was  not  yet  secure.  It  was  exposed  to  at- 
tacks both  at  home  and  abroad,  and  had  still  to 
pass  Parliament.  Until  it  was  entirely  safe,  Mr. 
Webster  determined  to  remain  at  his  post.  The 
17 


258 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


clamor  continued  about  his  resignation,  and  rose 
round  him  at  his  home  in  Marshfield,  whither  he 
had  gone  for  rest.  At  the  same  time  the  Whig 
convention  of  Massachusetts  declared  formally  a 
complete  separation  from  the  President.  In  the 
language  of  to-day,  they  “ read  Mr.  Tyler  out  of 
the  party.”  There  was  a variety  of  motives  for 
this  action.  One  was  to  force  Mr.  Webster  out  of 
the  cabinet,  another  to  advance  the  fortunes  of 
Mr.  Clay,  in  favor  of  whose  presidential  candidacy 
movements  had  began  in  Massachusetts,  even 
among  Mr.  Webster’s  personal  friends,  as  well  as 
elsewhere.  Mr.  Webster  had  just  declined  a pub- 
lic dinner,  but  he  now  decided  to  meet  his  friends 
in  Faneuil  Hall.  An  immense  audience  gathered 
to  hear  him,  many  of  them  strongly  disapproving 
his  course,  but  after  he  had  spoken  a few  mo- 
ments, he  had  them  completely  under  control. 
He  reviewed  the  negotiation ; he  discussed  fully 
the  differences  in  the  party  ; he  deplored,  and  he 
did  not  hesitate  strongly  to  condemn  these  quar- 
rels, because  by  them  the  fruits  of  victory  were 
lost,  and  Whig  policy  abandoned.  With  boldness 
and  dignity  he  denied  the  right  of  the  convention 
to  declare  a separation  from  the  President,  and 
the  implied  attempt  to  coerce  himself  and  others. 
“ I am,  gentlemen,  a little  hard  to  coax,”  he  said, 
“ but  as  to  being  driven,  that  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. If  I choose  to  remain  in  the  President’s 
councils,  do  these  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  I 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


259 


cease  to  be  a Massachusetts  Whig?  I am  quite 
readv  to  put  that  question  to  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts.” He  was  well  aware  that  he  was  losing 
party  strength  by  his  action  ; he  knew  that  be- 
hind all  these  resolutions  was  the  intention  to 
raise  his  great  rival  to  the  presidency ; but  he  did 
not  shrink  from  avowing  his  independence  and  his 
intention  of  doing  what  he  believed  to  be  right, 
and  what  posterity  admits  to  have  been  so.  Mr. 
Webster  never  appeared  to  better  advantage,  and 
he  never  made  a more  manly  speech  than  on  this 
occasion,  when,  without  any  bravado,  he  quietly  set 
the  influence  and  the  threats  of  his  party  at  de- 
fiance. 

He  was  not  mistaken  in  thinking  that  the  treaty 
was  not  yet  in  smooth  water.  It  was  again  attacked 
in  the  Senate,  and  it  had  a still  more  severe  ordeal 
to  go  through  in  Parliament.  The  opposition, 
headed  by  Lord  Palmerston,  assailed  tbe  treaty 
and  Lord  Ashburton  himself,  with  the  greatest 
virulence,  denouncing  the  one  as  a capitulation, 
and  the  other  as  a grossly  unfit  appointment. 
Moreover,  the  language  of  the  President’s  message 
led  England  to  believe  that  we  claimed  that  the 
right  of  search  had  been  abandoned.  After  much 
correspondence,  this  misunderstanding  drew  forth 
an  able  letter  from  Mr.  Webster,  stating  that  the 
right  of  search  had  not  been  included  in  the 
treaty,  but  that  the  “ cruising  convention  ” had 
rendered  the  question  unimportant.  Finally,  all 


260 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


complications  were  dispersed,  and  the  treaty  rati- 
fied ; and  then  came  an  attack  from  an  unexpected 
quarter.  General  Cass  — our  minister  at  Paris  — 
undertook  to  protest  against  the  treaty,  denounce 
it,  and  leave  his  post  on  account  of  it.  This 
wholly  gratuitous  assault  led  to  a public  corre- 
spondence, in  which  General  Cass,  on  his  own 
confession,  was  completely  overthrown  and  broken 
down  by  the  Secretary  of  State.  This  was  the 
last  difficulty,  and  the  work  was  finally  accepted 
and  complete. 

During  this  important  and  absorbing  negotia- 
tion, other  matters  of  less  moment,  but  still  of 
considerable  consequence,  had  been  met  by  Mr. 
Webster,  and  successfully  disposed  of.  He  made 
a treaty  with  Portugal,  respecting  duties  on  wines ; 
he  carried  on  a long  correspondence  with  our  min- 
ister to  Mexico  in  relation  to  certain  American 
prisoners ; he  vindicated  the  course  of  the  United 
States  in  regard  to  the  independence  of  Texas, 
teaching  M.  de  Bocanegra,  the  Mexican  Secretary 
of  State,  a lesson  as  to  the  duties  of  neutrality,  and 
administering  a severe  reproof  to  that  gentleman 
for  imputing  bad  faith  to  the  United  States  ; he 
conducted  the  correspondence,  and  directed  the 
policy  of  the  government  in  regard  to  the  troubles 
in  Rhode  Island ; he  made  an  effort  to  settle  the 
Oregon  boundary  ; and,  finally,  he  set  on  foot  the 
Chinese  mission,  which,  after  being  offered  to  Mr. 
Everett,  was  accepted  by  Mr.  Cushing  with  the 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


261 


best  results.  But  bis  real  work  came  to  an  end 
with  the  correspondence  with  General  Cass  at  the 
close  of  1842,  and  in  May  of  the  following  year 
he  resigned  the  secretaryship.  In  the  two  years 
during:  which  he  had  been  at  the  head  of  the 
cabinet,  he  had  done  much.  His  work  added  to 
his  fame  by  the  ability  which  it  exhibited  in  a 
new  field,  and  has  stood  the  test  of  time.  In  a 
period  of  difficulty,  and  even  danger,  he  proved 
himself  singularly  well  adapted  for  the  conduct 
of  foreign  affairs,  — a department  which  is  most 
peculiarly  and  traditionally  the  employment  and 
test  of  a highly-trained  statesman.  It  may  be 
fairly  said  that  no  one,  with  the  exception  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  has  ever  shown  higher  qualities, 
or  attained  greater  success  in  the  administration 
of  the  State  Department,  than  Mr.  Webster  did 
while  in  Mr.  Tyler’s  cabinet. 

On  his  resignation,  he  returned  at  once  to  pri- 
vate life,  and  passed  the  next  summer  on  his  farm 
at  Marshfield,  — now  grown  into  a large  estate,  — 
which  was  a source  of  constant  interest  and  delight, 
and  where  he  was  able  to  have  beneath  his  eyes  his 
beloved  sea.  His  private  affairs  were  in  disorder, 
and  required  his  immediate,  attention.  He  threw 
himself  into  his  profession,  and  his  practice  at  once 
became  active,  lucrative,  and  absorbing.  To  this 
period  of  retirement  belong  the  second  Bunker  Hill 
oration  and  the  Girard  argument,  which  made  so 
much  noise  in  its  day.  He  kept  himself  aloof 


262 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


from  politics,  but  could  not  wholly  withdraw  from 
them.  The  feeling  against  him,  on  account  of  his 
continuance  in  the  cabinet,  had  subsided,  and  there 
was  a feeble  and  somewhat  fitful  movement  to  drop 
Clay,  and  present  Mr.  Webster  as  a candidate  for 
the  presidency.  Mr.  Webster,  however,  made  a 
speech  at  Andover,  defending  his  course  and  advo- 
cating Whig  principles,  and  declared  that  he  was 
not  a candidate  for  office.  He  also  refused  to  allow 
New  Hampshire  to  mar  party  harmony  by  bring- 
ing his  name  forward.  When  Mr.  Clay  was  nom- 
inated, in  May,  1844,  Mr.  Webster,  who  had  be- 
held with  anxiety  the  rise  of  the  Liberty  party 
and  prophesied  the  annexation  of  Texas,  decided, 
although  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  silence  of  the 
Whigs  on  this  subject,  to  sustain  their  candidate. 
This  was  undoubtedly  the  wisest  course ; and, 
having  once  enlisted,  he  gave  Mr.  Clay  a heartl- 
and vigorous  support,  making  a series  of  powerful 
speeches,  chiefly  on  the  tariff,  and  second  in  vari- 
ety and  ability  only  to  those  which  he  had  deliv- 
ered in  the  Harrison  campaign.  Mr.  Clay  was  de- 
feated largely  by  the  action  of  the  Liberty  party, 
and  the  silence  of  the  Whigs  about  Texas  and 
slavery  cost  them  the  election.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  year  Mr.  Webster  had  declined  a reelection 
to  the  Senate,  but  it  was  impossible  for  him  to 
remain  out  of  politics,  and  the  pressure  to  return 
soon  became  too  strong  to  be  resisted.  When  Mr. 
Choate  resigned  in  the  winter  of  1844-45,  Mr. 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 


263 


Webster  was  reelected  senator  from  Massachu- 
setts. On  the  first  of  March  the  intrigue,  to  per- 
fect which  Mr.  Calhoun  had  accepted  the  State 
Department,  culminated,  and  the  resolutions  for 
the  annexation  of  Texas  passed  both  branches  of 
Congress.  Four  days-  later  Mr.  Polk’s  adminis- 
tration, pledged  to  the  support  and  continuance  of 
the  annexation  policy,  was  in  power,  and  Mr. 
Webster  had  taken  his  seat  in  the  Senate  for  his 
last  term. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  — THE  SEVENTH  OP 
MARCH  SPEECH. 

The  principal  events  of  Mr.  Polk’s  administra- 
tion belong  to  or  grow  out  of  the  slavery  agitation, 
then  beginning  to  assume  most  terrible  propor- 
tions. So  far  as  Mr.  Webster  is  concerned,  they 
form  part  of  the  history  of  his  course  on  the  slav- 
ery question,  which  culminated  in  the  famous 
speech  of  March  7,  1850.  Before  approaching 
that  subject,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to  touch 
very  briefly  on  one  or  two  points  of  importance  in 
Mr.  Webster’s  career,  which  have  no  immediate 
bearing  on  the  question  of  slavery,  and  no  relation 
to  the  final  and  decisive  stand  which  Mr.  Webster 
took  in  regard  to  it. 

The  Ashburton  treaty  was  open  to  one  just  crit- 
icism. It  did  not  go  far  enough.  It  did  not  set- 
tle the  northwestern  as  it  did  the  northeastern 
boundary.  Mr.  Webster,  as  has  been  said,  made 
an  effort  to  deal  with  the  former  as  well  as  the 
latter,  but  he  met  with  no  encouragement,  and 
as  he  was  then  preparing  to  retire  from  office,  the 
matter  dropped.  In  regard  to  the  northwestern 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  265 

boundary  Mr.  Webster  agreed  with  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet,  that  the  forty-ninth  par- 
allel was  a fair  and  proper  line ; but  the  British 
undertook  to  claim  the  line  of  the  Columbia  River, 
and  this  excited  corresponding  claims  on  our  side. 
The  Democracy  for  political  purposes  became  es- 
pecially warlike  and  patriotic.  They  declared  in 
their  platform  that  we  must  have  the  whole  of 
Oregon  and  reoccupy  it  at  once.  Mr.  Polk  em- 
bodied this  view  in  his  message,  together  with  the 
assertion  that  our  rights  extended  to  the  line  of 
54°  4(b  north,  and  a shout  of  “ fifty-four-forty  or 
fight”  went  through  the  land  from  the  entliusias- 
tic  Democracy.  If  this  attitude  meant  anything 
it  meant  war,  inasmuch  as  our  proposal  for  the 
forty-ninth  parallel,  and  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Columbia  River,  made  in  the  autumn  of  1845,  had 
been  rejected  by  England,  and  then  withdrawn 
by  us.  Under  these  circumstances  Mr.  Webster 
felt  it  his  duty  to  come  forward  and  exert  all  his 
influence  to  maintain  peace,  and  to  promote  a clear 
comprehension,  both  in  the  United  States  and  in 
Europe,  of  the  points  at  issue.  His  speech  on  this 
subject  and  with  this  aim  was  delivered  in  Faneuil 
Hall.  He  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  peace,  of  the 
fair  adjustment  offered  by  an  acceptance  of  the 
forty-ninth  parallel,  and  derided  the  idea  of  cast- 
ing two  grfeat  nations  into  war  for  such  a question 
as  this.  He  closed  with  a forcible  and  solemn  de- 
nunciation of  the  president  or  minister  who  should 


266 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dare  to  take  the  responsibility  for  kindling  the 
flames  of  war  on  such  a pretext.  The  speech  was 
widely  read.  It  was  translated  into  nearly  all  the 
languages  of  Europe,  and  on  the  continent  had  a 
great  effect.  About  a month  later  he  wrote  to 
Mr.  MacGregor  of  Glasgow,  suggesting  that  the 
British  government  should  offer  to  accept  the 
forty-ninth  parallel,  and  his  letter  was  shown  to 
Lord  Aberdeen,  who  at  once  acted  upon  the  ad- 
vice it  contained.  While  this  letter,  however,  was 
on  its  way,  certain  resolutions  were  introduced  in 
tbe  Senate  relating  to  the  national  defences,  and 
to  give  notice  of  the  termination  of  the  conven- 
tion for  the  joint  occupation  of  Oregon,  which 
would  of  course  have  been  nearly  equivalent  to  a 
declai’ation  of  war.  Mr.  Webster  opposed  the 
resolutions,  and  insisted  that,  while  the  Executive, 
as  he  believed,  had  no  real  wish  for  war,  this  talk 
was  kept  up  about  “ all  or  none,”  which  left  noth- 
ing to  negotiate  about.  The  notice  finally  passed, 
but  before  it  could  be  delivered  by  our  minister  in 
London,  Lord  Aberdeen’s  proposition  of  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Webster,  had 
been  received  at  Washington,  where  it  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  truculent  administration,  agreed  to 
by  the  Senate,  and  finally  embodied  in  a treaty. 
Mr.  Webster’s  opposition  had  served  its  purpose 
in  delaying  action  and  saving  bluster  from  being 
converted  into  actual  war,  — a practical  conclusion 
by  no  means  desired  by  the  dominant  party,  who 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


267 


had  talked  so  loud  that  they  came  very  near  blun- 
dering into  hostilities  merely  as  a matter  of  self- 
justification. The  declarations  of  the  Democratic 
convention  and  of  the  Democratic  President  in 
regard  to  England  were  really  only  sound  and 
fury,  although  they  went  so  far  that  the  final  re- 
treat was  noticeable  and  not  very  graceful.  The 
Democratic  leaders  had  had  no  intention  of  fights 
ing  with  England  when  all  they  could  hope  to 
gain  would  be  glory  and  hard  knocks,  but  they 
had  a very  definite  idea  of  attacking  without  blus- 
ter and  in  good  earnest  another  nation  where  there 
was  territory  to  be  obtained  for  slavery. 

The  Oregon  question  led,  however,  to  an  attack 
upon  Mr.  Webster  which  cannot  be  wholly  passed 
over.  He  had,  of  course,  his  personal  enemies  in 
both  parties,  and  his  effective  opposition  to  war 
with  England  greatly  angered  some  of  the  most 
warlike  of  the  Democrats,  and  especially  Mr. 
C.  J.  Ingersoll  of  Pennsylvania,  a bitter  Anglo- 
phobist.  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  Februai'37,  made  a sav- 
age attack  upon  the  Ashburton  negotiation,  the 
treaty  of  Washington,  and  upon  Mr.  Webster  per- 
sonally, alleging  that  as  Secretary  of  State  he 
had  been  guilty  of  a variety  of  grave  misdemean- 
ors, including  a corrupt  use  of  the  public  money. 
Some  of  these  charges,  those  relating  to  the  pay- 
ment of  McLeod’s  counsel  by  our  government, 
to  instructions  to  the  Attorney-General  to  take 
charge  of  McLeod’s  defence,  and  to  a threat  by 


268 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Mr.  Webster  that  if  McLeod  were  not  released 
New  York  would  be  laid  in  ashes,  were  I'epeated 
in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Dickinson  of  New  York. 
Mr.  Webster  peremptorily  called  for  all  the  papers 
relating  to  the  negotiation  of  1842,  and  on  the 
sixth  and  seventh  of  April  (1846),  he  made  the 
elaborate  speech  in  defence  of  the  Ashburton 
treaty,  which  is  included  in  his  collected  works. 
It  is  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  virile  speeches 
he  ever  delivered.  He  was  profoundly  indignant, 
and  he  had  the  completest  mastery  of  his  subject. 
In  fact,  he  was  so  deeply  angered  by  the  charges 
made  against  him,  that  he  departed  from  his  al- 
most invariable  practice,  and  indulged  in  a severe 
personal  denunciation  of  Ingei’soll  and  Dickinson. 
Although  he  did  not  employ  personal  invective  in 
his  oratory,  it  was  a weapon  which  he  was  capable 
of  using  with  most  terrible  effect,  and  his  blows 
fell  with  crushing  force  upon  Ingersoll,  who  writhed 
under  the  strokes.  Through  some  inferior  officers 
of  the  State  Department  Ingersoll  got  what  he 
considered  proofs,  and  then  introduced  resolutions 
calling  for  an  account  of  all  payments  from  the 
secret  service  fund ; for  communications  made  by 
Mr.  Webster  to  Messrs.  Adams  and  Cushing  of 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs;  for  all  papers 
relating  to  McLeod,  and  for  the  minutes  of  the 
committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  to  show  that  Mr. 
Webster  had  expressed  an  opinion  adverse  to  our 
claim  in  the  Oregon  dispute.  Mr.  Ingersoll  closed 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  269 

his  speech  by  a threat  of  impeachment  as  the  result 
and  reward  of  all  this  evil-doing,  and  an  angry 
debate  followed,  in  which  Mr.  Webster  was  at- 
tacked and  defended  with  equal  violence.  Presi- 
dent Polk  replied  to  the  call  of  the  House  by  say- 
ing that  he  could  not  feel  justified,  either  morally 
or  legally,  in  revealing  the  uses  of  the  secret  ser- 
vice fund.  Meantime  a similar  resolution  was  de- 
feated in  the  Senate  by  a vote  of  forty-four  to  one, 
Mr.  Webster  remarking  that  he  was  glad  that  the 
President  had  refused  the  request  of  the  House  ; 
that  he  should  have  been  sorry  to  have  seen  an 
important  principle  violated,  and  that  he  was  not 
in  the  least  concerned  at  being  thus  left  without 
an  explanation ; he  needed  no  defence,  he  said, 
against  such  attacks. 

Mr.  Ingei-soll,  rebuffed  by  the  President,  then 
made  a personal  explanation,  alleging  specifically 
that  Mr.  Webster  had  made  an  unlawful  use  of 
the  secret  service  money,  that  he  had  employed 
it  to  corrupt  the  press,  and  that  he  was  a defaulter. 
Mr.  Ashmun  of  Massachusetts  replied  with  great 
bitterness,  and  the  charges  were  referred  to  a com- 
mittee. It  appeared,  on  investigation,  that  Mr. 
Webster  had  been  extremely  careless  in  his  ac- 
counts, and  had  delayed  in  making  them  up  and  in 
rendering  vouchers,  faults  to  which  he  was  natu- 
rally prone ; but  it  also  appeared  that  the  money 
had  been  properly  spent,  that  the  accounts  had  ulti- 
mately been  made  up,  and  that  there  was  no  evi- 


270 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dence  of  improper  use.  The  committee’s  report  was 
laid  upon  the  table,  the  charges  came  to  nothing, 
and  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  left  in  a very  unpleasant  po- 
sition with  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
obtained  his  information  from  the  State  Depart- 
ment. The  affair  is  of  interest  now  merely  as 
showing  how  deeply  rooted  was  Mr.  Webster’s 
habitual  carelessness  in  money  matters,  even 
when  it  was  liable  to  expose  him  to  very  grave 
imputations,  and  what  a very  dangerous  man  he 
was  to  arouse  and  put  on  the  defensive. 

Mr.  Webster  was  absent  when  the  intrigue  and 
scheming  of  Mr.  Polk  culminated  in  war  with 
Mexico,  and  so  his  vote  was  not  given  either  for 
or  against  it.  He  opposed  the  volunteer  system 
as  a mongrel  contrivance,  and  resisted  it  as  he  had 
the  conscription  bill  in  the  war  of  1812,  as  uncon- 
stitutional. He  also  opposed  the  continued  prose- 
cution of  the  war,  and,  when  it  drew  toward  a 
close,  was  most  earnest  against  the  acquisition  of 
new  territory.  In  the  summer  of  1847  he  made 
an  extended  tour  through  the  Southern  States,  and 
was  received  there,  as  he  had  been  in  the  West, 
with  every  expression  of  interest  and  admiration. 

The  Mexican  war,  however,  cost  Mr.  Webster 
far  more  than  the  anxiety  and  disappointment 
which  it  brought  to  him  as  a public  man.  His 
second  son,  Major  Edward  Webster,  died  near  the 
City  of  Mexico,  from  disease  contracted  by  expos- 
ure on  the  march.  This  melancholy  news  reached 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  271 

Mr.  Webster  when  important  matters  which  de- 
manded his  attention  were  pending  in  Congress. 
Measures  to  continue  the  war  were  before  the  Sen- 
ate even  after  they  had  ratified  the  peace.  These 
measures  Mr.  Webster  strongly  resisted,  and  he 
also  opposed,  in  a speech  of  great  power,  the  ac- 
quisition of  new  territories  by  conquest,  as  threat- 
ening the  very  existence  of  the  nation,  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Constitution,  and  the  Constitution 
itself.  The  increase  of  senators,  which  was,  of 
course,  the  object  of  the  South  in  annexing  Texas 
and  in  the  proposed  additions  from  Mexico,  he 
regarded  as  destroying  the  balance  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  therefore  he  denounced  the  plan  of  ac- 
quisition by  conquest  in  the  strongest  terms.  The 
course  about  to  be  adopted,  he  said,  will  turn  the 
Constitution  into  a deformity,  into  a curse  rather 
than  a blessing ; it  will  make  a frame  of  govern- 
ment founded  on  the  grossest  inequality,  and 
will  imperil  the  existence  of  the  Union.  With 
this  solemn  warning  he  closed  his  speech,  and  im- 
mediately left  Washington  for  Boston,  where  his 
daughter,  Mrs.  Appleton,  was  sinking  in  con- 
sumption. She  died  on  April  28th  and  was  buried 
on  May  1st.  Three  days  later,  Mr.  Webster  fol- 
lowed to  the  grave  the  body  of  his  son  Edward, 
which  had  been  brought  from  Mexico.  Two  such 
terrible  blows,  coming  so  near  together,  need  no 
comment.  They  tell  their  own  sad  story.  One 
child  only  remained  to  him  of  all  who  had  gath- 


272 


• DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ered  about  his  knees  in  the  happy  days  at  Ports- 
mouth and  Boston,  and  his  mind  turned  to 
thoughts  of  death  as  he  prepared  at  Marshfield  a 
final  resting-place  for  himself  and  those  he  had 
loved.  Whatever  successes  or  defeats  were  still 
in  store  for  him,  the  heavy  cloud  of  domestic  sor- 
row could  never  he  dispersed  in  the  years  that  re- 
mained, nor  could  the  gaps  which  had  been  made 
he  filled  or  forgotten. 

But  the  sting  of  personal  disappointment  and  of 
frustrated  ambition,  trivial  enough  in  comparison 
with  such  griefs  as  these,  was  now  added  to  this 
heavy  burden  of  domestic  affliction.  The  success 
of  General  Taylor  in  Mexico  rendered  him  a most 
tempting  candidate  for  the  Whigs  to  nominate. 
His  military  services  and  his  personal  popularity 
promised  victory,  and  the  fact  that  no  one  knew 
Taylor’s  political  principles,  or  even  whether  he 
was  a Whig  or  a Democrat,  seemed  rather  to  in- 
crease than  diminish  his  attractions  in  the  eyes  of 
the  politicians.  A movement  was  set  on  foot  to 
bring  about  this  nomination,  and  its  managers 
planned  to  make  Mr.  Webster  Vice-President  on 
the  ticket  with  the  victorious  soldier.  Such  an 
offer  was  a melancholy  commentary  on  his  ambi- 
tious hopes.  He  spurned  the  proposition  as  a per- 
sonal indignity,  and,  disapproving  always  of  the  se- 
lection of  military  men  for  the  presidency,  openly 
refused  to  give  his  assent  to  Taylor’s  nomination 
Other  trials,  however,  were  still  in  store  for  him. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  273 

Mr.  Clay  was  a candidate  for  the  nomination,  and 
many  Whigs,  feeling  that  his  success  meant  another 
party  defeat,  turned  to  Taylor  as  the  only  instru- 
ment to  prevent  this  danger.  In  February,  1848, 
a call  was  issued  in  New  York  for  a public  meeting 
to  advance  General  Taylor's  candidacy,  which 
was  signed  by  many  of  Mr.  Webster’s  personal 
and  political  friends.  Mr.  Webster  was  surprised 
and  grieved,  and  bitterly  resented  this  action. 
His  biographer,  Mr.  Curtis,  speaks  of  it  as  a blun- 
der which  rendered  Mr.  Webster's  nomination 
hopeless.  The  truth  is,  that  it  was  a most  signifi- 
cant illustration  of  the  utter  futility  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s presidential  aspirations.  These  friends  in 
New  York,  who  no  doubt  honestly  desired  his 
nomination,  were  so  well  satisfied  that  it  was  per- 
fectly impracticable,  that  they  turned  to  General 
Taylor  to  avoid  the  disaster  threatened,  as  they 
believed,  by  Mr.  Clay's  success.  Mr.  Webster 
predicted  truly  that  Clay  and  Taylor  would  be 
the  leading  candidates  before  the  convention,  but 
he  was  wholly  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the 
movement  in  New  York  would  bring  about  the 
nomination  of  the  former.  His  friends  had  judged 
rightly.  Taylor  -was  the  only  man  who  could  de- 
feat Clay,  and  he  was  nominated  on  the  fourth 
ballot.  Massachusetts  voted  steadily  for  Webster, 
but  he  never  approached  a nomination.  Even 
Scott  had  twice  as  many  votes.  The  result  of  the 
convention  led  Mr.  Webster  to  take  a very  gloomy 
18 


274 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


view  of  the  prospects  of  the  Whigs,  and  he  was 
strongly  inclined  to  retire  to  his  tent  and  let  them 
go  to  deserved  ruin.  In  private  conversation  he 
spoke  most  disparagingly  of  the  nomination,  the 
Whig  party,  and  the  Whig  candidate.  His  stric- 
tures were  well  deserved,  but,  as  the  election  drew 
on,  he  found  or  believed  it  to  be  impossible  to 
live  up  to  them.  He  was  not  ready  to  go  over  to 
the  Free-Soil  partjr,  he  could  not  remain  silent, 
yet  he  could  not  give  Taylor  a full  support.  In 
September,  1848,  he  made  his  famous  speech  at 
Marshfield,  in  which,  after  declaring  that  the  “ sa- 
gacious, wise,  far-seeing  doctrine  of  availability 
lay  at  the  root  of  the  whole  mattei’,”  and  that 
“ the  nomination  was  one  not  fit  to  be  made,”  he 
said  that  General  Taylor  was  personally  a brave 
and  honorable  man,  and  that,  as  the  choice  lay 
between  him  and  the  Democratic  candidate,  Gen- 
eral Cass,  he  should  vote  for  the  former  and  ad- 
vised his  friends  to  do  the  same.  He  afterwards 
made  another  speech,  in  a similar  but  milder 
strain,  in  Faneuil  Hall.  Mr.  Webster’s  attitude 
was  not  unlike  that  of  Hamilton  when  he  pub- 
lished his  celebrated  attack  on  Adams,  which 
ended  by  advising  all  men  to  vote  for  that  objec- 
tionable man.  The  conclusion  was  a little  impo- 
tent in  both  instances,  but  in  Mr.  Webster’s  case 
the  results  were  better.  The  politicians  and  lovers 
of  availability  had  judged  wisely,  and  Taylor  was 
triumphantly  elected. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


275 


Before  tlie  new  President  was  inaugurated,  in 
the  winter  of  1848-49,  the  struggle  began  in 
Congress,  which  led  to  the  delivery  of  the  7th  of 
March  speech  by  Mr.  Webster  in  the  following 
year.  At  this  point,  therefore,  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  turn  back  and  review  briefly  and  rapidly 
Mr.  Webster's  course  in  regard  to  the  question  of 
slavery. 

His  first  important  utterance  on  this  momentous 
question  was  in  1819,  when  the  land  was  distracted 
with  the  conflict  which  had  suddenly  arisen  over 
the  admission  of  Missouri.  Massachusetts  was 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from 
the  new  States,  and  utterly  averse  to  any  com- 
promise. A meeting  was  held  in  the  state-house 
at  Boston,  and  a committee  was  appointed  to  draft 
a memorial  to  Congress,  on  the  subject  of  the  pro- 
hibition of  slavery  in  the  territories.  This  me- 
morial, — which  was  afterwards  adopted,  — was 
drawn  by  Mr.  Webster,  as  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee. It  set  forth,  first,  the  belief  of  its  signers 
that  Congress  had  the  constitutional  power  “ to 
make  such  a prohibition  a condition  on  the  admis- 
sion of  a new  State  into  the  Union,  and  that  it 
is  just  and  proper  that  they  should  exercise  that 
power.”  Then  came  an  argument  on  the  consti- 
tutional question,  and  then  the  reasons  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  as  a general  policy.  The  first 
point  was  that  it  would  prevent  further  inequal- 
ity of  representation,  such  as  existed  under  the 


276 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Constitution  in  the  old  States,  but  which  could 
not  be  increased  without  danger.  The  next  argu- 
ment went  straight  to  the  merits  of  the  question, 
as  involved  in  slavery  as  a system.  After  pointing 
out  the  value  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  to  the  North- 
west, the  memorial  continued  : — 

“We  appeal  to  the  justice  and  the  wisdom  of  the 
national  councils  to  prevent  the  further  progress  of  a 
great  and  serious  evil.  We  appeal  to  those  who  look 
forward  to  the  remote  consequences  of  their  measures, 
and  who  cannot  balance  a temporary  or  trilling  con- 
venience, if  there  were  such,  against  a permanent  grow- 
ing and  desolating  evil. 

. . . The  Missouri  territory  is  a new  country.  If  its 
extensive  and  fertile  fields  shall  be  opened  as  a market 
for  slaves,  the  government  will  seem  to  become  a party 
to  a traffic,  which  in  so  many  acts,  through  so  many 
years,  it  has  denounced  as  impolitic,  unchristian,  and  in- 
human. . . . The  laws  of  the  United  States  have  de- 
nounced heavy  penalties  against  the  traffic  in  slaves, 
because  such  traffic  is  deemed  unjust  and  inhuman. 
We  appeal  to  the  spirit  of  these  laws;  we  appeal  to 
this  justice  and  humanity;  we  ask  whether  they  ought 
not  to  operate,  on  the  present  occasion,  with  all  their 
force?  We  have  a strong  feeling  of  the  injustice  of 
any  toleration  of  slavery.  Circumstances  have  entailed 
it  on  a portion  of  our  community,  which  cannot  be  im- 
mediately relieved  from  it  without  consequences  more 
injurious  than  the  suffering  of  the  evil.  But  to  permit 
it  in  a new  country,  where  yet  no  habits  are  formed 
which  render  it  indispensable,  what  is  it  but  to  en- 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENA  TE. 


277 


courage  that  rapacity  and  fraud  and  violence  against 
which  we  have  so  long  pointed  the  denunciation  of 
our  penal  code  ? What  is  it  but  to  tarnish  the  proud 
fame  of  the  country  ? What  is  it  but  to  render  ques- 
tionable all  its  professions  of  regard  for  the  rights  of 
humanity  and  the  liberties  of  mankind.” 

A year  later  Mr.  "Webster  again  spoke  on  one 
portion  of  this  subject,  and  in  the  same  tone  of 
deep  hostility  and  reproach.  This  second  instance 
was  that  famous  and  much  quoted  passage  of  his 
Plymouth  oration  in  which  he  denounced  the  Af- 
rican slave-trade.  Every  one  remembers  the  ring- 
ing words  : — 

“ I hear  the  sound  of  the  hammer,  I see  the  smoke  of 
the  furnaces  where  manacles  and  fetters  are  still  forged 
for  human  limbs.  I see  the  visages  of  those  who,  by 
stealth  and  at  midnight,  labor  in  this  work  of  hell,  — 
foul  and  dark  as  may  become  the  artificers  of  such  in- 
struments of  misery  and  torture.  Let  that  spot  be  puri- 
fied, or  let  it  cease  to  be  of  New  England.  Let  it  be 
purified,  or  let  it  be  set  aside  from  the  Christian  world  ; 
let  it  be  put  out  of  the  circle  of  human  sympathies  and 
human  regards,  and  let  civilized  man  henceforth  have 
no  communion  with  it.” 

This  is  directed  against  the  African  slave-trade, 
the  most  hideous  feature,  perhaps,  in  the  system. 
But  there  was  no  real  distinction  between  slavers 
plying  from  one  American  port  to  another  and 
those  which  crossed  the  ocean  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. There  was  no  essential  difference  between 


278 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


slaves  raised  for  the  market  in  Virginia  — whence 
they  were  exported  and  sold  — and  those  kid- 
napped for  the  same  object  on  the  Guinea  coast. 
The  physical  suffering  of  a land  journey  might 
be  less  than  that  of  a long  sea-voyage,  but  the  an- 
guish of  separation  between  mother  and  child  was 
the  same  in  all  cases.  The  chains  which  clanked 
on  the  limbs  of  the  wretched  creatures,  driven  from 
the  auction  block  along  the  road  which  passed  be- 
neath the  national  capitol,  and  the  fetters  of  the 
captured  fugitive  were  no  softer  or  lighter  than 
those  forged  for  the  cargo  of  the  slave-ships.  Yet 
the  man  who  so  magnificently  denounced  the  one  in 
1820,  found  no  cause  to  repeat  the  denunciation  in 
1850,  when  only  domestic  traffic  was  in  question. 
The  memorial  of  1819  and  the  oration  of  1820  place 
the  African  slave-trade  and  the  domestic  branch 
of  the  business  on  precisely  the  same  ground  of 
infamy  and  cruelty.  In  1850  Mr.  Webster  seems 
to  have  discovered  that  there  was  a wide  gulf  fixed 
between  them,  for  the  latter  wholly  failed  to  ex- 
cite the  stern  condemnation  poured  forth  by  the 
memorialist  of  1819  and  the  orator  of  1820.  The 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  more  inhuman  than  either  of 
the  forms  of  traffic,  was  defended  in  1850  on  good 
constitutional  grounds;  but  the  eloquent  invective 
of  the  early  days  against  an  evil  which  constitu- 
tions might  necessitate  but  could  not  alter  or  jus- 
tify, does  not  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  legal  argu- 
ment. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


279 


The  next  occasion  after  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise, on  which  slavery  made  its  influence  strongly 
felt  at  Washington,  was  when  Mr.  Adams’s  scheme 
of  the  Panama  mission  aroused  such  bitter  and 
unexpected  resistance  in  Congress.  Mr.  Webster 
defended  the  policy  of  the  President  with  great 
ability,  but  he  confined  himself  to  the  interna- 
tional and  constitutional  questions  which  it  in- 
volved, and  did  not  discuss  the  underlying  motive 
and  true  source  of  the  opposition.  The  debate 
on  Foote's  resolution  in  1830,  in  the  wide  range 
which  it  took,  of  course  included  slavery,  and  Mr. 
Hayne  had  a good  deal  to  say  on  that  subject, 
which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  tariff  agitation,  as 
it  did  at  that  of  every  Southern  movement  of  anj7 
real  importance.  In  his  reply,  Mr.  Webster  said 
that  he  had  made  no  attack  upon  this  sensitive 
institution,  that  he  had  simply  stated  that  the 
Northwest  had  been  greatly  benefited  by  the  ex- 
clusion of  slavery,  and  that  it  would  have  been 
better  for  Kentucky  if  she  had  come  within  the 
scope  of  the  ordinance  of  1787.  The  weight  of 
his  remarks  was  directed  to  showing  that  the  com- 
plaint of  Northern  attacks  on  slavery  as  existing 
in  the  Southern  States,  or  of  Northern  schemes  to 
compel  the  abolition  of  slavery,  was  utterly  ground- 
less and  fallacious.  At  the  same  time  he  pointed 
out  the  way  in  which  slavery  was  continually  used 
to  unite  the  South  against  the  North. 

“ This  feeling,”  he  said,  “ always  carefully  kept  alive, 


280  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

and  maintained  at  too  intense  a heat  to  admit  discrim- 
ination or  reflection,  is  a lever  of  great  power  in  our 
political  machine.  There  is  not  and  never  has  been  a 
disposition  in  the  North  to  interfere  with  these  interests 
of  the  South.  Such  interference  has  never  been  sup- 
posed to  be  within  the  power  of  government ; nor  has  it 
been  in  any  way  attempted.  The  slavery  of  the  South 
has  always  been  regarded  as  a matter  of  domestic  policy 
left  with  the  States  themselves,  and  with  which  the  Fed- 
eral government  had  nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  sir,  I 
am  and  ever  have  been  of  that  opinion.  The  gentle- 
man, indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in  the  abstract,  is  no 
evil.  Most  assuredly,  I need  not  say  I differ  with  him 
altogether  and  most  widely  on  that  point.  I regard  do- 
mestic slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral 
and  political.” 

His  position  is  here  clearly  defined.  He  admits 
fully  that  slavery  within  the  States  cannot  be 
interfered  with  by  the  general  government,  under 
the  Constitution.  But  he  also  insists  that  it  is  a 
great  evil,  and  the  obvious  conclusion  is,  that  its 
extension,  over  which  the  government  does  have 
control,  must  and  should  be  checked.  This  is  the 
attitude  of  the  memorial  and  the  oration.  Nothing 
has  yet  changed.  There  is  less  fervor  in  the  de- 
nunciation of  slavery,  but  that  may  be  fairly  attrib- 
uted to  circumstances  which  made  the  maintenance 
of  the  general  government  and  the  enforcement  of 
the  revenue  laws  the  main  points  in  issue. 

In  1886  the  anti-slavery  movement,  destined  to 
grow  to  such  vast  proportions,  began  to  show  it- 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


281 


self  in  the  Senate.  The  first  contest  came  on  the 
reception  of  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery- 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Mr.  Calhoun  moved 
that  these  petitions  should  not  be  received,  but  his 
motion  was  rejected  by  a large  majority.  The 
question  then  came  on  the  petitions  themselves, 
and,  by  a vote  of  thirty-four  to  six,  their  prayer 
was  rejected,  Mr.  Webster  voting  with  the  minor- 
ity because  he  disapproved  this  method  of  disposing 
of  the  matter.  Soon  after,  Mr.  AYebster  presented 
three  similar  petitions,  two  from  Massachusetts 
and  one  from  Michigan,  and  moved  their  reference 
to  a committee  of  inquiry.  He  stated  that,  while 
the  government  had  no  power  whatever  over  slav- 
ery in  the  States,  it  had  complete  control  over 
slavery  in  the  District,  which  was  a totally  dis- 
tinct affair.  He  urged  a respectful  treatment  of 
the  petitions,  and  defended  the  right  of  petition 
and  the  motives  and  characters  of  the  petitioners. 
He  spoke  briefly,  and,  except  when  he  was  charged 
with  placing  himself  at  the  head  of  the  petition- 
ers, coldly,  and  did  not  touch  on  the  merits  of  the 
question,  either  as  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  or  as  to  slavery  itself. 

The  Southerners,  especially  the  extremists  and 
the  nullifiers,  were  always  more  ready  than  any 
one  else  to  strain  the  powers  of  the  central  gov- 
ernment to  the  last  point,  and  use  them  most  ty- 
rannically and  illegally  in  their  own  interest  and  in 
that  of  their  pet  institution.  The  session  of  1836 


282 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


furnished  a striking  example  of  this  characteristic 
quality.  Mr.  Calhoun  at  that  time  introduced  his 
monstrous  bill  to  control  the  United  States  mails 
in  the  interests  of  slavery,  by  authorizing  post- 
masters to  seize  and  suppress  all  anti-slavery 
documents.  Against  this  measure  Mr.  Webster 
spoke  and  voted,  resting  his  opposition  on  general 
grounds,  and  sustaining  it  by  a strong  and  effect- 
ive argument.  In  the  following  year,  on  his  way 
to  the  North,  after  the  inauguration  of  Mr.  Van 
Bureh,  a great  public  reception  was  given  to  him 
in  New  York,  and  on  that  occasion  he  made  the 
speech  in  Niblo’s  Garden,  where  he  defined  the 
Whig  principles,  arraigned  so  powerfully  the  pol- 
icy of  Jackson,  and  laid  the  foundation  for  the 
triumphs  of  the  Harrison  campaign.  In  the  course 
of  that  speech  he  referred  to  Texas,  and  strongly 
expressed  his  belief  that  it  should  remain  inde- 
pendent and  should  not  be  annexed.  This  led  him 
to  touch  upon  slavery.  He  said  : — 

“ I frankly  avow  my  entire  unwillingness  to  do  any- 
thing that  shall  extend  the  slavery  of  the  African  race  on 
this  continent,  or  add  other  slave-holding  States  to  the 
Union.  When  I say  that  I regard  slavery  in  itself  as  a 
great  moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  I only  use  the  lan- 
guage which  has  been  adopted  by  distinguished  men, 
themselves  citizens  of  slave-holding  States.  I shall  do 
nothing,  therefore,  to  favor  or  encourage  its  further  ex- 
tension. We  have  slavery  already  amongst  us.  The 
Constitution  found  it  in  the  Union,  it  recognized  it,  and 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


283 


gave  it  solemn  guaranties.  To  the  full  extent  of  the 
guaranties  we  are  all  bound  in  honor,  in  justice,  and  by 
the  Constitution.  . . . But  when  we  come  to  speak  of 
admitting  new  States,  the  subject  assumes  an  entirely 
different  aspect.  ...  In  my  opinion,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  will  not  consent  to  bring  into  the  Union  a 
new,  vastly  extensive,  and  slave-holding  country,  large 
enough  for  half  a dozen  or  a dozen  States.  In  my 
opinion,  they  ought  not  to  consent  to  it.  . . . On  the 
general  question  of  slavery  a great  portion  of  the  com- 
munity is  already  strongly  excited.  The  subject  has 
not  only  attracted  attention  as  a question  of  politics,  but 
it  has  struck  a far  deeper-toned  chord.  It  has  arrested 
the  religious  feeling  of  the  country  ; it  has  taken  strong 
hold  on  the  consciences  of  men.  He  is  a rash  man,  in- 
deed, and  little  conversant  with  human  nature,  and  espe- 
cially has  he  a very  erroneous  estimate  of  the  character 
of  the  people  of  this  country,  who  supposes  that  a feel- 
ing of  this  kind  is  to  be  trifled  with  or  despised.  It  will 
assuredly  cause  itself  to  be  respected.  It  may  be  rea- 
soned with,  it  may  be  made  willing  — I believe  it  is 
entirely  willing  — to  fulfil  all  existing  engagements  and 
all  existing  duties,  to  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution 
as  it  is  established,  with  whatever  regrets  about  some 
provisions  which  it  does  actually  contain.  But  to  co- 
erce it  into  silence,  to  endeavor  to  restrain  its  free 
expression,  to  seek  to  compress  and  confine  it,  warm  as 
it  is  and  more  heated  as  such  endeavors  would  inevita- 
bly render  it,  — should  this  be  attempted,  I know  noth- 
ing, even  in  the  Constitution  or  in  the  Union  itself, 
which  would  not  be  endangered  by  the  explosion  which 
might  follow.” 


284 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Thus  Mr.  Webster  spoke  on  slavery  and  upon 
the  agitation  against  it,  in  1837.  The  tone  was 
the  same  as  in  1820,  and  there  was  the  same  ring 
of  dignified  courage  and  unyielding  opposition  to 
the  extension  and  perpetuation  of  a crying  evil. 

In  the  session  of  Congress  preceding  the  speech 
at  Niblo’s  Garden,  numerous  petitions  for  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery  in  the  District  had  been  offei’ed. 
Mr.  Webster  reiterated  his  views  as  to  the  proper 
disposition  to  be  made  of  them  ; but  announced 
that  he  had  no  intention  of  expressing  an  opinion 
as  to  the  merits  of  the  question.  Objections  were 
made  to  the  reception  of  the  petitions,  the  ques- 
tion was  stated  on  the  reception,  and  the  whole 
matter  was  laid  on  the  table.  The  Senate,  under 
the  lead  of  Calhoun,  was  trying  to  shut  the  door 
against  the  petitioners,  and  stifle  the  right  of  peti- 
tion ; and  there  was  no  John  Quincy  Adams  among 
them  to  do  desperate  battle  against  this  infamous 
scheme. 

In  the  following  year  came  more  petitions,  and 
Mr.  Calhoun  now  attempted  to  stop  the  agitation 
in  another  fashion.  He  introduced  a resolution  to 
the  effect  that  these  petitions  were  a direct  and 
dangerous  attack  on  the  “ institution  ” of  the  slave- 
holding States.  This  Mr.  Clay  improved  in  a 
substitute,  which  stated  that  any  act  or  measure 
of  Congress  looking  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  would  be  a violation  of  the  faith  im- 
plied in  the  cession  by  Virginia  and  Maryland, — 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


285 


a just  cause  of  alarm  to  tlie  South,  and  having  a 
direct  tendency  to  disturb  and  endanger  the  Union. 
Mr.  Webster  wrote  to  a friend  that  this  was  an  at- 
tempt to  make  a new  Constitution,  and  that  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate,  when  they  passed  the 
resolutions, {drew  a line  which  could  never  be  ob- 
literated. Mr.  Webster  also  spoke  briefly  against 
the  resolutions,  confining  himself  strictly  to  demon- 
strating the  absurdity  of  Mr.  Clay’s  doctrine  of 
“plighted  faith.”  He  disclaimed  carefully,  and 
even  anxiously,  any  intention  of  expressing  an 
opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  question  ; although 
he  mentioned  one  or  two  reasonable  arguments 
against  abolition.  The  resolutions  were  adopted 
by  a large  majority,  Mr.  Webster  voting  against 
them  oii  the  grounds  set  forth  in  his  speech. 
Whether  the  approaching  presidential  election 
had  any  connection  with  his  careful  avoidance  of 
everything  except  the  constitutional  point,  which 
contrasted  so  strongly  with  his  recent  utterances 
at  Niblo’s  Garden,  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to 
determine.  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  had  no 
love  for  Mr.  Webster,  and  who  was  then  in  the 
midst  of  his  desperate  struggle  for  the  right  of 
petition,  says,  in  his  diary,  in  March,  1838,  speak- 
ing of  the  delegation  from  Massachusetts  : — 

“ Their  policy  is  dalliance  with  the  South ; and  they 
care  no  more  for  the  right  of  petition  than  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  satisfy  the  feeling  of  their  constituents 
They  are  jealous  of  Cushing,  who,  they  think,  is  playing 


286 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


a double  game.  They  are  envious  of  my  position  as 
the  supporter  of  the  right  of  petition  ; and  they  truckle 
to  the  South  to  court  their  favor  for  Webster.  He  is 
now  himself  tampering  with  the  South  on  the  slavery  and 
the  Texas  question.” 

This  harsh  judgment  may  or  may  fiot  be  cor- 
rect, but  it  shows  very  plainly  that  Mr.  Webster’s 
caution  in  dealing  with  these  topics  was  noticed 
and  criticised  at  this  period.  The  annexation  of 
Texas,  moreover,  which  he  had  so  warmly  opposed, 
seemed  to  him,  at  this  juncture,  and  not  without 
reason,  to  be  less  threatening,  owing  to  the  course 
of  events  in  the  young  republic.  Mr.  Adams  did 
not,  however,  stand  alone  in  thinking  that  Mr. 
Webster,  at  this  time,  was  lukewarm  on  the  sub- 
ject. In  1839  Mr.  Giddings  says  “that  it  was  im- 
possible for  any  man,  who  submitted  so  quietly  to 
the  dictation  of  slavery  as  Mr.  Webster,  to  com- 
mand that  influence  which  was  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a successful  politician.”  How  much  Mr. 
Webster’s  attitude  had  weakened,  just  at  this 
period,  is  shown  better  by  his  own  action  than  by 
anything  Mr.  Giddings  could  say.  The  ship  En- 
terprise, engaged  in  the  domestic  slave-trade  from 
Virginia  to  New  Orleans,  had  been  driven  into 
Port  Hamilton,  and  the  slaves  had  escaped. 
Great  Britain  refused  compensation.  Thereupon, 
early  in  1840,  Mr.  Calhoun  introduced  resolutions 
declaratory  of  international  law  on  this  point,  and 
setting  forth  that  England  had  no  right  to  inter- 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


287 


fere  with,  or  to  permit,  the  escape  of  slaves  from 
vessels  driven  into  her  ports.  The  resolutions 
were  idle,  because  they  could  effect  nothing,  and 
mischievous  because  they  represented  that  the  sen- 
timent of  the  Senate  was  in  favor  of  protecting  the 
slave-trade.  Upon  these  resolutions,  absurd  in 
character  and  barbarous  in  principle,  Mr.  Webster 
did  not  even  vote.  There  is  a strange  contrast 
here  between  the  splendid  denunciation  of  the 
Plymouth  oration  and  this  utter  lack  of  opinion, 
upon  resolutions  designed  to  create  a sentiment 
favorable  to  the  protection  of  slave-ships  engaged 
in  the  domestic  traffic.  Soon  afterwards,  when 
Mr.  Webster  was  Secretary  of  State,  he  advanced 
much  the  same  doctrine  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Creole  case,  and  his  letter  was  approved  by  Cal- 
houn. There  may  be  merit  in  the  legal  argument, 
but  the  character  of  the  cargo,  which  it  was  sought 
to  protect,  put  it  beyond  the  reach  of  law.  We 
have  no  need  to  go  farther  than  the  Plymouth 
oration  to  find  the  true  character  of  the  ti’ade  in 
human  beings  as  carried  on  upon  the  high  seas. 

After  leaving  the  cabinet,  and  resuming  his 
law  practice,  Mr.  Webster,  of  course,  continued 
to  watch  with  attention  the  progress  of  events. 
The  formation  of  the  Liberty  party,  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1843,  appeared  to  him  a very  grave  cir- 
cumstance. He  had  always  understood  the  force 
of  the  anti-slavery  movement  at  the  North,  and 
it  was  with  much  anxiety  that  he  now  saw  it  take 


288 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


definite  shape,  and  assume  extreme  grounds  of  op- 
position. This  feeling  of  anxiety  was  heightened 
when  he  discovered,  in  the  following  winter,  while 
in  attendance  upon  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washing- 
ton, the  intention  of  the  administration  to  bring 
about  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  spring  the 
scheme  suddenly  upon  the  country.  This  policy, 
with  its  conseqiience  of  an  enormous  extension  of 
slave  territory,  Mr.  Webster  had  always  vigorously 
and  consistently  opposed,  and  he  was  now  thor- 
oughly alarmed.  He  saw  what  an  effect  the  an- 
nexation would  produce  upon  the  anti-slavery 
movement,  and  he  dreaded  the  results.  He  there- 
fore procured  the  introduction  of  a resolution  in 
Congress  against  annexation  ; wrote  some  articles 
in  the  newspapers  against  it  himself ; stirred  up 
his  friends  in  Washington  and  New  York  to  do 
the  same,  and  endeavored  to  start  public  meetings 
in  Massachusetts.  His  friends  in  Boston  and  else- 
where, and  the  Whigs  generally,  were  disposed  to 
think  his  alarm  ill-founded.  They  were  absorbed 
in  the  coming  presidential  election,  and  were  too 
ready  to  do  Mr.  Webster  the  injustice  of  supposing 
that  his  views  upon  the  probability  of  annexation 
sprang  from  jealousy  of  Mr.  Clay.  The  suspicion 
was  unfounded  and  unfair.  Mr.  Webster  was 
wholly  right  and  perfectly  sincere.  He  did  a 
good  deal  in  an  attempt  to  rouse  the  North.  The 
only  criticism  to  be  made  is  that  he  did  not  do 
more.  One  public  meeting  would  have  been 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


289 


enough,  if  he  had  spoken  frankly,  declared  that  he 
knew,  no  matter  how,  that  annexation  was  con- 
templated, and  had  then  denounced  it  as  he  did  at 
Niblo’s  Garden.  “ One  blast  upon  his  bugle-horn 
were  worth  a thousand  men.”  Such  a speech 
would  have  been  listened  to  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land ; but  perhaps  it  was  too 
much  to  expect  this  of  him  in  view  of  his  delicate 
relations  with  Mr.  Clay.  At  a later  period,  in  the 
course  of  the  campaign,  he  denounced  annexation 
and  the  increase  of  slave  territory,  but  unfortu- 
nately it  was  then  too  late.  The  Whigs  had  pre- 
served silence  on  the  subject  at  their  convention, 
and  it  was  difficult  to  deal  with  it  without  reflecting 
on  their  candidate.  Mr.  Webster  vindicated  his 
own  position  and  his  own  wisdom,  but  the  mischief 
could  not  then  be  averted.  The  annexation  of 
Texas  after  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  in  1844 
was  carried  through,  nearly  a year  later,  by  a mix- 
ture of  trickery  and  audacity  in  the  last  hours  of 
the  Tyler  administration. 

Four  days  after  the  consummation  of  this  proj- 
ect Mr.  Webster  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  and 
on  March  11  wrote  to  his  son  that,  “while  we 
feel  as  we  ought  about  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
we  ought  to  keep  in  view  the  true  grounds  of  ob- 
jection to  that  measure.  Those  grounds  are, — 
want  of  constitutional  power,  — danger  of  too 
great  an  extent  of  territory,  and  opposition  to  the 
increase  of  slavery  and  slave  representation.  It 
19 


290 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


was  properly  considered,  also,  as  a measure  tend- 
ing to  produce  war.”  He  then  goes  on  to  argue 
that  Mexico  had  no  good  cause  for  war  ; but  it  is 
evident  that  he  already  dreaded  just  that  result. 
When  Congress  assembled  again,  in  the  following 
December,  the  first  matter  to  engage  their  attention 
was  the  admission  of  Texas  as  a State  of  the  Union. 
It  was  impossible  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the 
resolution,  but  Mr.  Webster  stated  his  objections 
to  the  measure.  His  speech  was  brief  and  very 
mild  in  tone,  if  compared  with  the  language  which 
he  had  frequently  used  in  regard  to  the  annexa- 
tion. He  expressed  his  opposition  to  this  method 
of  obtaining  new  territory  by  resolution  instead  of 
treaty,  and  to  acquisition  of  territory  as  foreign  to 
the  true  spirit  of  the  Republic,  and  as  endangering 
the  Constitution  and  the  Union  by  increasing  the 
already  existing  inequality  of  representation,  and 
extending  the  area  of  slavery.  He  dwelt  on  the 
inviolability  of  slavery  in  the  States,  and  did  not 
touch  upon  the  evils  of  the  system  itself. 

By  the  following  spring  the  policy  of  Mr.  Polk 
had  culminated,  intrigue  had  done  its  perfect  work, 
hostilities  had  been  brought  on  with  Mexico,  and 
in  May  Congress  was  invited  to  declare  a war 
which  the  administration  had  taken  care  should 
already  exist.  Mr.  Webster  was  absent  at  this 
time,  and  did  not  vote  on  the  declaration  of  war ; 
and  when  he  returned  he  confined  himself  to  dis- 
cussing the  war  measures,  and  to  urging  the  cessa- 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE.  291 

tion  of  hostilities,  and  the  renewal  of  efforts  to  ob- 
tain peace. 

The  next  session  — that  of  the  winter  of  1846- 
47  — was  occupied,  of  course,  almost  entirely  with 
the  affairs  of  the  war.  In  these  measures  Mr. 
Webster  took  scarcely  any  part  ; but  toward 
the  close  of  the  session,  when  the  terms  on  which 
the  war  should  be  concluded  were  brought  up, 
he  again  came  forward.  February  1,  1847, 
Mr.  Wilmot  of  Pennsylvania  introduced  the  fa- 
mous proviso,  which  bears  his  name,  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  bill  appropriating  three  millions  of 
dollars  for  extraordinary  expenses.  By  this  pro- 
viso slavery  was  to  be  excluded  from  all  terri- 
tory thereafter  acquired  or  annexed  by  the  United 
States.  A fortnight  later  Mr.  Webster,  who  was 
opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  more  territory  on  any 
terms,  introduced  two  resolutions  in  the  Senate, 
declaring  that  the  war  ought  not  to  be  prosecuted 
for  the  acquisition  of  territory,  and  that  Mexico 
should  be  informed  that  we  did  not  aim  at  seizing 
her  domain.  A similar  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr. 
Berrien  of  Georgia,  and  defeated  by  a party  vote. 
On  this  occasion  Mr.  Webster  spoke  with  great 
force  and  in  a tone  of  solemn  warning  against 
the  whole  policy  of  territorial  aggrandizement. 
He  denounced  all  that  had  been  done  in  this  direc- 
tion, and  attacked  with  telling  force  the  Northern 
democracy,  which,  while  it  opposed  slavery  and 
favored  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  was  yet  ready  to  ad- 


292 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


mit  new  territory,  even  without  the  proviso.  His 
attitude  at  this  time,  in  opposition  to  any  further 
acquisition  of  territory  on  any  terms,  was  strong 
and  determined,  but  his  policy  was  a terrible  con- 
fession of  weakness.  It  amounted  to  saying  that 
we  must  not  acquire  territory  because  we  had  not 
sufficient  courage  to  keep  slavery  out  of  it.  The 
Whigs  were  in  a minority,  however,  and  Mr.  Web- 
ster could  effect  nothing.  When  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso came  before  the  Senate  Mr.  Webster  voted 
for  it,  but  it  was  defeated,  and  the  way  was  clear 
for  Mr.  Polk  and  the  South  to  bring  in  as  much 
territory  as  they  could  get,  free  of  all  conditions 
which  could  interfere  with  the  extension  of  slavery. 
In  September,  1847,  after  speaking  and  voting  as 
has  just  been  described  in  the  previous  session  of 
Congress,  Mr.  Webster  addressed  the  Whig  con- 
vention at  Springfield  on  the  subject  of  the  Wil- 
mot Proviso.  What  he  then  said  is  of  great  im- 
portance in  any  comparison  which  may  be  made 
between  his  earlier  views  and  those  which  he  after- 
wards put  forward,  in  March,  1850,  on  the  same 
subject.  The  passage  is  as  follows  : — 

“ We  hear  much  just  now  of  a panacea  for  the  dan- 
gers and  evils  of  slavery  and  slave  annexation,  which 
they  call  the  ‘ Wilmot  Proviso.’  That  certainly  is  a just 
sentiment,  but  it  is  not  a sentiment  to  found  any  new 
party  upon.  It  is  not  a sentiment  on  which  Massachu- 
setts Whigs  differ.  There  is  not  a man  in  this  hall  who 
holds  to  it  more  firmly  than  I do,  nor  one  who  adheres 
to  it  more  than  another. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


293 


“ I feel  some  little  interest  in  this  matter,  sir.  Did  I 
not  commit  myself  in  1837  to  the  whole  doctrine,  fully, 
entirely  ? And  I must  he  permitted  to  say  that  I can- 
not quite  consent  that  more  recent  discoverers  should 
claim  the  merit,  and  take  out  a patent. 

“ I deny  the  priority  of  their  invention.  Allow  me 
to  say,  sir,  it  is  not  their  thunder. 

“ There  is  no  one  who  can  complain  of  the  North  for 
resisting  the  increase  of  slave  representation,  because  it 
gives  power  to  the  minority  in  a manner  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  of  our  government.  What  is  past 
must  stand  ; what  is  established  must  stand  ; and  with  the 
same  firmness  with  which  I shall  resist  every  plan  to 
augment  the  slave  representation,  or  to  bring  the  Con- 
stitution into  hazard  by  attempting  to  extend  our  do- 
minions, shall  I contend  to  allow  existing  rights  to 
remain. 

“ Sir,  I can  only  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  we  are 
to  use  the  first,  the  last,  and  every  occasion  which  oc- 
curs, in  maintaining  our  sentiments  against  the  exten- 
sion of  the  slave-power.” 

In  the  following  winter  Mr.  Webster  continued 
his  policy  of  opposition  to  all  acquisitions  of  ter- 
ritory. Although  the  cloud  of  domestic  sorrow 
was  already  upon  him,  he  spoke  against  the  legis- 
lative powers  involved  in  the  “ Ten  Regiment  ” 
Bill,  and  on  the  23d  of  March,  after  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  peace,  which  carried  with  it 
large  cessions  of  territory,  he  delivered  a long  and 
elaborate  speech  on  the  “ Objects  of  the  Mexican 
War.”  The  weight  of  his  speech  was  directed 


294 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


against  the  acquisition  of  territory,  on  account  of 
its  effect  on  the  Constitution,  and  the  increased 
inequality  of  representation  which  it  involved. 
He  referred  to  the  plan  of  cutting  up  Texas  so  as 
to  obtain  ten  senators,  as  “ borough- mongering  ” 
on  a grand  scale,  a course  which  he  proposed  to 
resist  to  the  last ; and  he  concluded  by  denouncing 
the  whole  project  as  one  calculated  to  turn  the 
Constitution  into  a curse  rather  than  a blessing. 
“ I resist  it  to-day  and  always,”  he  said.  “ Who- 
ever falters  or  whoever  flies,  I continue  the  con- 
test.” 

In  June  General  Taylor  was  nominated,  and 
soon  after  Mr.  Webster  left  Washington,  although 
Congress  was  still  in  session.  He  returned  in 
August,  in  time  to  take  part  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Oregon  question.  The  South,  with  custom- 
ary shrewdness,  was  endeavoring  to  use  the  terri- 
torial organization  of  Oregon  as  a lever  to  help 
them  in  their  struggle  to  gain  control  of  the  new 
conquests.  A bill  came  up  from  the  House  with 
no  provision  in  regard  to  slavery,  and  Mr.  Douglas 
carried  an  amendment  to  it,  declaring  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  to  be  in  full  force  in  Oregon. 
The  House  disagreed,  and,  on  the  question  of  re- 
ceding, Mr.  Webster  took  occasion  to  speak  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  He  was 
disgusted  with  the  nomination  of  Taylor  and  with 
the  cowardly  silence  of  the  Whigs  on  the  question 
of  the  extension  of  slavery.  In  this  frame  of 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


295 


mind  he  made  one  of  the  strongest  and  best 
speeches  he  ever  delivered  on  this  topic.  He  de- 
nied that  slavery  was  an  “ institution ; ” he  denied 
that  the  local  right  to  hold  slaves  implied  the 
right  of  the  owner  to  carry  them  with  him  and 
keep  them  in  slavery  on  free  soil ; he  stated  in 
the  strongest  possible  manner  the  right  of  Con- 
gress to  control  slavery  or  to  prohibit  it  in  the 
territories ; and  he  concluded  with  a sweeping 
declaration  of  his  opposition  to  any  extension  of 
slavery  or  any  increase  of  slave  representation. 
The  Oregon  bill  finally  passed  under  the  pressure 
of  the  “ Free-Soil  ” nominations,  with  a clause  in- 
serted in  the  House,  embodying  substantially  the 
principles  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso. 

When  Congress  adjourned,  Mr.  Webster  re- 
turned to  Marshfield,  where  he  made  the  speech, 
on  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor.  It  was 
a crisis  in  his  life.  At  that  moment  he  could 
have  parted  with  the  Whigs  and  put  himself  at 
the  head  of  the  constitutional  anti-slavery  party. 
The  Free-Soilers  had  taken  the  very  ground 
against  the  extension  of  slavery  which  he  had  so 
long  occupied.  He  could  have  gone  consistently, 
he  could  have  separated  from  the  Whigs  on  a great 
question  of  principle,  and  such  a course  would 
have  been  no  stronger  evidence  of  personal  disap- 
pointment than  was  afforded  by  the  declaration 
that  the  nomination  of  Taylor  was  one  not  fit  to 
be  made.  Mr.  Webster  said  that  he  fully  con- 


296 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


curred  in  the  main  object  of  the  Buffalo  Conven- 
tion, that  he  was  as  good  a Free-Soiler  as  any  of 
them,  but  that  the  Free-Soil  party  presented  noth- 
ing new  or  valuable,  and  he  did  not  believe  in 
Mr.  Van  Buren.  He  then  said  it  was  not  true 
that  General  Taylor  was  nominated  by  the  South, 
as  charged  by  the  Free-Soilers ; but  he  did  not 
confess,  what  w^as  equally  true,  that  Taylor  was 
nominated  through  fear  of  the  South,  as  was 
shown  by  his  election  by  Southern  votes.  Mr. 
Webster’s  conclusion  was,  that  it  was  safer  to 
trust  a slave-holder,  a man  without  known  politi- 
cal opinions,  and  a party  which  had  not  the  cour- 
age of  its  convictions,  than  to  run  the  risk  of  the 
election  of  another  Democrat.  Mr.  Webster’s  place 
at  that  moment  was  at  the  head  of  a new  party 
based  on  the  principles  which  he  had  himself  for- 
mulated against  the  extension  of  slavery.  Such  a 
change  might  have  desti’oyed  his  chances  for  the 
presidency,  if  he  had  any,  but  it  would  have  given 
him  one  of  the  greatest  places  in  American  his- 
tory and  made  him  the  leader  in  the  new  period. 
He  lost  his  opportunity.  He  did  not  change  his 
party,  but  he  soon  after  accepted  the  other  alter- 
native and  changed  his  opinions. 

His  course  once  taken,  he  made  the  best  of  it, 
and  delivered  a speech  in  Faneuil  Hall,  in  which 
it  is  painful  to  see  the  effort  to  push  aside  slavery 
and  bring  forward  the  tariff  and  the  sub-treasury. 
He  scoffed  at  this  absorption  in  “ one  idea,”  and 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


297 


strove  to  thrust  it  away.  It  was  the  cry  of  “ peace, 
peace,”  when  there  was  no  peace,  and  when  Dan- 
iel Webster  knew  there  could  be  none  until  the 
momentous  question  had  been  met  and  settled. 
Like  the  great  composer  who  heard  in  the  first 
notes  of  his  symphony  “the  hand  of  Fate  knock- 
ing at  the  door,”  the  great  New  England  states- 
man heard  the  same  warning  in  the  hoarse  mur- 
mur against  slavery,  but  he  shut  his  ears  to  the 
dread  sound  and  passed  on. 

When  Mr.  Webster  returned  to  Washington, 
after  the  election  of  General  Taylor,  the  strife  had 
already  begun  over  our  Mexican  conquests.  The 
South  had  got  the  territory,  and  the  next  point 
was  to  fasten  slavery  upon  it.  The  North  was 
resolved  to  prevent  the  further  spread  of  slavery, 
but  was  by  no  means  so  determined  or  so  clear  in 
its  views  as  its  opponent.  President  Polk  urged 
in  his  message  that  Congress  should  not  legislate 
on  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  but 
that  if  they  did,  the  right  of  slave-holders  to  carry 
their  slaves  with  them  to  the  new  lands  should  be 
recognized,  and  that  the  best  arrangement  was  to 
extend  the  line  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  to 
the  Pacific.  For  the  originator  and  promoter  of 
the  Mexican  war  this  was  a very  natural  solution, 
and  was  a fit  conclusion  to  one  of  the  worst  presi- 
dential careers  this  country  has  ever  seen.  The 
plan  had  only  one  defect.  It  would  not  work. 
One  scheme  after  another  was  brought  before  the 


298 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Senate,  only  to  fail.  Finally,  Mr.  Webster  intro- 
duced his  own,  which  was  merely  to  authorize  mil- 
itary government  and  the  maintenance  of  existing 
laws  in  the  Mexican  cessions,  and  a consequent 
postponement  of  the  question.  The  proposition 
was  reasonable  and  sensible,  but  it  fared  little 
better  than  the  others.  The  Southerners  found, 
as  they  always  did  sooner  or  later,  that  facts  were 
against  them.  The  people  of  New  Mexico  peti- 
tioned for  a territorial  government  and  for  the  ex- 
clusion of  slaveiy.  Mr.  Calhoun  pronounced  this 
action  “ insolent.”  Slavery  was  not  only  to  be  per- 
mitted, but  the  United  States  government  was  to  be 
made  to  force  it  upon  the  people  of  the  territories. 
Finally,  a resolution  was  offered  “ to  extend  the 
Constitution”  to  the  territories, — one  of  those 
utterly  vague  propositions  in  which  the  South  de- 
lighted to  hide  well-defined  schemes  for  extending, 
not  the  Constitution,  but  slave-holding,  to  fresh 
fields  and  virgin  soil.  This  gave  rise  to  a sharp 
debate  between  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Calhoun  as 
to  whether  the  Constitution  extended  to  the  terri- 
tories or  not.  Mr.  Webster  upheld  the  latter 
view,  and  the  discussion  is  chiefly  interesting  from 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Webster  got  the  better  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  in  the  argument,  and  as  an  example  of 
the  latter’s  excessive  ingenuity  in  sustaining  and 
defending  a more  than  doubtful  proposition.  The 
result  of  the  whole  business  was,  that  nothing  was 
done,  except  to  extend  the  revenue  laws  of  the 
United  States  to  New  Mexico  and  California. 


RETURN  TO  THE  SENATE. 


299 


Before  Congress  again  assembled,  one  of  the 
subjects  of  their  debates  had  taken  its  fortunes 
into  its  own  hands.  California,  rapidly  peopled 
by  the  discoveries  of  gold,  had  held  a convention 
and  adopted  a frame  of  government  with  a clause 
prohibiting  slavery.  When  Congress  met,  the 
Senators  and  Representatives  of  California  were 
in  Washington  with  their  free  Constitution  in 
their  hands,  demanding  the  admission  of  their 
State  into  the  Union. 

New  Mexico  was  involved  in  a dispute  with 
Texas  as  to  boundaries,  and  if  the  claim  of  Texas 
was  sanctioned,  two  thirds  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory would  come  within  the  scope  of  the  annexa- 
tion resolutions,  and  be  slave-holding  States. 
Then  there  was  the  further  question  whether  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  should  be  applied  to  New  Mexico 
on  her  organization  as  a territory. 

The  President,  acting  under  the  influence  of 
Mr.  Seward,  advised  that  California  should  be  ad- 
mitted, and  the  question  of  slavex-y  in  the  other 
territories  be  decided  when  they  should  apply 
for  admission.  Feeling  was  running  very  high 
in  Washington,  and  there  was  a bitter  and  pro- 
tracted struggle  of  three  weeks,  before  the  House 
succeeded  in  choosing  a Speaker.  The  State  Leg- 
islatures on  both  sides  took  up  the  burning  ques- 
tion, and  debated  and  resolved  one  way  or  the 
other  with  great  excitement.  The  Southern  mem- 
bers held  meetings,  and  talked  about  secession  and 


300 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


about  withdrawing  from  Congress.  The  air  was 
full  of  murmurs  of  dissolution  and  intestine  strife. 
The  situation  was  gi'ave  and  even  threatening. 

In  this  state  of  affairs  Mr.  Clay,  now  an  old 
man,  and  with  but  a short  term  of  life  before  him, 
resolved  to  try  once  more  to  solve  the  problem 
and  tide  over  the  dangers  by  a grand  compromise. 
The  main  features  of  his  plan  were : the  admission 
of  California  with  her  free  Constitution ; the  organ- 
ization of  territorial  governments  in  the  Mexican 
conquests  without  any  reference  to  slavery;  the 
adjustment  of  the  Texan  boundary;  a guaranty 
of  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  until  Maryland  should  consent  to  its 
abolition ; the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  in 
the  District ; provision  for  the  more  effectual  en- 
forcement of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  a dec- 
laration that  Congress  had  no  power  over  the 
slave-trade  between  the  slave-holding  States.  As 
the  admission  of  California  was  certain,  the  prop- 
osition to  bring  about  the  prohibition  of  the  slave- 
trade  in  the  District  was  the  only  concession  to 
the  North.  Everything  else  was  in  the  interest 
of  the  South ; but  then  that  was  always  the  man- 
ner in  which  compromises  with  slavery  were  made. 
They  could  be  effected  in  no  other  way. 

This  outline  Mr.  Clay  submitted  to  Mr.  Web- 
ster January  21,  1850,  and  Mr.  Webster  gave  it 
his  full  approval,  subject,  of  course,  to  further 
and  more  careful  consideration.  February  5 Mr. 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  301 

Clay  introduced  his  plan  in  the  Senate,  and  sup- 
ported it  in  an  eloquent  speech.  On  the  13th  the 
President  submitted  the  Constitution  of  Califor- 
nia, and  Mr.  Foote  moved  to  refer  it,  together  with 
all  matters  relating  to  slavery,  to  a select  commit- 
tee. It  now  became  noised  about  that  Mr.  Web- 
ster intended  to  address  the  Senate  on  the  pending 
measures,  and  on  the  Tth  of  March  he  delivered 
the  memorable  speech  which  has  always  been 
known  by  its  date. 

It  may  be  premised  that  in  a literary  and 
rhetorical  point  of  view  the  speech  of  the  7th 
of  March  was  a fine  one.  The  greater  part  of 
it  is  taken  np  with  argument  and  statement,  and 
is  very  quiet  in  tone.  But  the  famous  passage 
beginning  “ peaceable  secession,”  which  came 
straight  from  the  heart,  and  the  peroration  also, 
have  the  glowing  eloquence  which  shone  with  so 
much  splendor  all  through  the  reply  to  Hayne. 
The  speech  can  be  readily  analyzed.  With  ex- 
treme calmness  of  language  Mr.  Webster  dis- 
cussed the  whole  history  of  slavery  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  and  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  His  attitude  is  so  judicial 
and  historical,-  that  if  it  is  clear  he  disapproved 
of  the  system,  it  is  not  equally  evident  that  he 
condemned  it.  He  reviewed  the  history  of  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  defended  his  own  consis- 
tency, belittled  the  W ilmot  Proviso,  admitted  sub- 
stantially the  boundary  claims  of  Texas,  and  de- 


302 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


dared  that  the  character  of  every  part  of  the 
country,  so  far  as  slavery  or  freedom  was  con- 
cerned, was  now  settled,  either  by  law  or  nature, 
and  that  he  should  resist  the  insertion  of  the  Wil- 
mot  Proviso  in  regard  to  New  Mexico,  because  it 
would  be  merely  a wanton  taunt  and  reproach  to 
the  South.  He  then  spoke  of  the  change  of  feel- 
ing and  opinion  both  at  the  North  and  the  South 
in  regard  to  slavery,  and  passed  next  to  the  ques- 
tion of  mutual  grievances.  He  depicted  at  length 
the  grievances  of  the  South,  including  the  tone  of 
the  Northern  press,  the  anti-slavery  resolutions 
of  the  Legislature,  the  utterances  of  the  abolition- 
ists, and  the  resistance  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 
The  last,  which  he  thought  the  only  substantial 
and  legally  remediable  complaint,  he  dwelt  on  at 
great  length,  and  severely  condemned  the  refusal 
of  certain  States  to  comply  with  this  provision  of 
the  Constitution.  Then  came  the  grievances  of  the 
North  against  the  South,  which  were  dealt  with 
very  briefly.  In  fact,  the  Northern  grievances,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Webster,  consisted  of  the  tone  of 
the  Southern  press  and  of  Southern  speeches  which, 
it  must  be  confessed,  were  at  times  a little  violent 
and  somewhat  offensive.  The  short  paragraph  re- 
citing the  unconstitutional  and  high-handed  action 
of  the  South  in  regard  to  free  negroes  employed  as 
seamen  on  Northern  vessels,  and  the  outrageous 
treatment  of  Mr.  Hoar  at  Charleston  in  connec- 
tion with  this  matter,  was  not  delivered,  Mr.  Gid- 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  303 

dings  says,  but  was  inserted  afterwards  and  before 
publication,  at  the  suggestion  of  a friend.  After 
this  came  the  fine  burst  about  secession,  and  a 
declaration  of  faith  that  the  Southern  convention 
called  at  Nashville  would  prove  patriotic  and  con- 
ciliatory. The  speech  concluded  with  a strong 
appeal  in  behalf  of  nationality  and  union. 

Mr.  Curtis  correctly  says  that  a great  majority 
of  Mr.  Webster’s  constituents,  if  not  of  the  whole 
North,  disapproved  this  speech.  He  might  have 
added  that  that  majority  has  steadily  increased. 
The  popular  verdict  has  been  given  against  the 
7th  of  March  speech,  and  that  verdict  has  passed 
into  history.  Nothing  can  now  be  said  or  written 
which  will  alter  the  fact  that  the  people  of  this 
country  who  maintained  and  saved  the  Union 
have  passed  judgment  upon  Mr.  Webster  and  con- 
demned what  he  said  on  the  7th  of  March,  1850, 
as  wrong  in  principle  and  mistaken  in  policy. 
This  opinion  is  not  universal,  — no  opinion  is, — 
but  it  is  held  by  the  great  body  of  mankind  who 
know  or  care  anything  about  the  subject,  and  it 
cannot  be  changed  or  substantially  modified,  be- 
cause subsequent  events  have  fixed  its  place  and 
worth  irrevocably.  It  is  only  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  examine  very  briefly  the  grounds  of  this 
adverse  judgment,  and  the  pleas  put  in  against  it 
by  Mr.  Webster  and  by  his  most  devoted  partisans. 

From  the  sketch  which  has  been  given  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  course  on  the  slavery  question,  we  see 


804 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


that  in  1819  and  1820  he  denounced  in  the  strong- 
est terms  slavery  and  every  form  of  slave-trade; 
that  while  he  fully  admitted  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  touch  slavery  in  the  States,  he  asserted 
that  it  was  their  right  and  their  paramount  duty 
absolutely  to  stop  any  further  extension  of  slave 
territory.  In  1 820  he  was  opposed  to  any  compro- 
mise on  this  question.  Ten  years  later  he  stood 
out  to  the  last,  unaffected  by  defeat,  against  the 
principle  of  compromise  which  sacrificed  the  rights 
and  the  dignity  of  the  general  government  to  the 
resistance  and  threatened  secession  of  a State. 

After  the  reply  to  Hayne  in  1830,  Mr.  Webster 
became  a standing  candidate  for  the  presidency, 
or  for  the  Whig  nomination  to  that  office.  From 
that  time  forth  the  sharp  denunciation  of  slavery 
and  traffic  in  slaves  disappears,  although  there  is 
no  indication  that  he  ever  altered  his  original 
opinion  on  these  points  ; but  he  never  ceased, 
sometimes  mildly,  sometimes  in  the  most  vigorous 
and  sweeping  manner,  to  attack  and  oppose  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  new  regions,  and  the  in- 
crease of  slave  territory.  If,  then,  in  the  7th  of 
March  speech,  he  was  inconsistent  with  his  past, 
such  inconsistency  must  appear,  if  at  all,  in  his 
general  tone  in  regard  to  slavery,  in  his  views  as 
to  the  policy  of  compromise,  and  in  his  attitude 
toward  the  extension  of  slavery,  the  really  crucial 
question  of  the  time. 

As  to  the  first  point,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  305 

there  is  a vast  difference  between  the  tone  of  the 
Plymouth  oration  and  the  Boston  memorial  toward 
slavery  and  the  slave-trade,  and  that  of  the  7th  of 
March  speech  in  regard  to  the  same  subjects.  For 
many  years  Mr.  Webster  had  had  but  little  to  say 
against  slavery  as  a system,  but  in  the  7th  of 
March  speech,  in  reviewing  the  history  of  slavery, 
he  treats  the  matter  in  such  a very  calm  manner, 
that  he  not  only  makes  the  best  case  possible  for 
the  South,  but  his  tone  is  almost  apologetic  when 
speaking  in  their  behalf.  To  the  grievances  of 
the  South  he  devotes  more  than  five  pages  of  his 
speech,  to  those  of  the  North  less  than  two.  As 
to  the  infamy  of  making  the  national  capital  a 
great  slave-mart,  he  has  nothing  to  say — although 
it  was  a matter  which  figured  as  one  of  the  ele- 
ments in  Mr.  Clay’s  scheme. 

But  what  most  shocked  the  North  in  this  con- 
nection were  his  utterances  in  regard  to  the  Fu- 
gitive Slave  Law.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
under  the  Constitution  the  South  had  a perfect 
right  to  claim  the  extradition  of  fugitive  slaves. 
The  legal  argument  in  support  of  that  right  was 
excellent,  but  the  Northern  people  could  not  feel 
that  it  was  necessary  for  Daniel  Webster  to  make 
it.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  in  absolute  con- 
flict with  the  awakened  conscience  and  moral  sen- 
timent of  the  North.  To  strengthen  that  law, 
and  urge  its  enforcement,  was  a sure  way  to  make 
the  resistance  to  it  still  more  violent  and  intol- 


20 


306 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


erant.  Constitutions  and  laws  will  prevail  over 
much,  and  allegiance  to  them  is  a high  duty,  but 
when  they  come  into  conflict  Avith  a deep-rooted 
moral  sentiment,  and  with  the  principles  of  liberty 
and  humanity,  they  must  be  modified,  or  else  they 
will  be  broken  to  pieces.  That  this  should  have 
been  the  case  in  1850  was  no  doubt  to  be  regretted, 
but  it  was  none  the  less  a fact.  To  insist  upon  the 
constitutional  duty  of  returning  fugitive  slaves, 
to  upbraid  the  North  with  their  opposition,  and 
to  urge  upon  them  and  upon  the  country  the 
strict  enforcement  of  the  extradition  law,  was  cer- 
tain to  embitter  and  intensify  the  opposition  to  it. 
The  statesmanlike  course  was  to  recognize  the 
ground  of  Northern  resistance,  to  show  the  South 
that  a too  violent  insistence  upon  their  constitu- 
tional rights  would  be  fatal,  and  to  endeavor  to 
obtain  such  concessions  as  would  allay  excited  feel- 
ings. Mr.  Webster’s  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  pleased  the  South,  of  course ; 
but  it  irritated  and  angered  the  North.  It  pro- 
moted the  very  struggle  which  it  proposed  to  al- 
lay, for  it  admitted  the  existence  of  only  one  side 
to  the  question.  The  consciences  of  men  cannot 
be  coerced;  and  when  Mr.  Webster  undertook  to 
do  it  he  dashed  himself  against  the  rocks.  People 
did  not  stop  to  distinguish  between  a legal  argu- 
ment and  a defence  of  the  merits  of  catching  run- 
away slaves.  To  refer  to  the  original  law  of  1793 
was  idle.  Public  opinion  had  changed  in  half  a 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  307 

century;  and  what  bad  seemed  reasonable  at  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  monstrous  in 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth. 

All  this  Mr.  Webster  declined  to  recognize. 
He  upheld  without  diminution  or  modification 
the  constitutional  duty  of  sending  escaping  slaves 
back  to  bondage ; and  from  the  legal  soundness  of 
this  position  there  is  no  escape.  The  trouble  was 
that  he  had  no  word  to  say  against  the  cruelty 
and  barbarity  of  the  system.  To  insist  upon  the 
necessity  of  submitting  to  the  hard  and  repulsive 
duty  imposed  by  the  Constitution  was  one  thing. 
To  urge  submission  without  a word  of  sorrow  or 
regret  was  another.  The  North  felt,  and  felt 
rightly,  that  while  Mr.  Webster  could  not  avoid 
admitting  the  force  of  the  constitutional  provisions 
about  fugitive  slaves,  and  was  obliged  to  bow  to 
their  behest,  yet  to  defend  them  without  reserva- 
tion, to  attack  those  who  opposed  them,  and  to 
urge  the  rigid  enforcement  of  a Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  was  not  in  consonance  with  his  past,  his 
conscience,  and  his  duty  to  his  constituents.  The 
constitutionality  of  a Fugitive  Slave  Law  may  be 
urged  and  admitted  over  and  over  again,  but  this 
could  not  make  the  North  believe  that  advocacy  of 
slave-catching  was  a task  suited  to  Daniel  Webster. 
The  simple  fact  was  that  he  did  not  treat  the  gen- 
eral question  of  slavery  as  he  always  had  treated 
it.  Instead  of  denouncing  and  deploring  it,  and 
striking  at  it  whenever  the  Constitution  per 


308 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


mitted,  lie  apologized  for  its  existence,  and  urged 
the  enforcement  of  its  most  obnoxious  laws.  This 
was  not  his  attitude  in  1820;  this  was  not  what 
the  people  of  the  North  expected  of  him  in  1850. 

In  regard  to  the  policy  of  compromise  there  is  a 
much  stronger  contrast  between  Mr.  Webster’s 
attitude  in  1850  and  his  earlier  course  than  in  the 
case  of  his  views  on  the  general  subject  of  slavery. 
In  1819,  although  not  in  public  life,  Mr.  Webster, 
as  is  clear  from  the  tone  of  the  Boston  memorial, 
was  opposed  to  any  compromise  involving  an  ex- 
tension of  slavery.  In  1832-33  he  was  the  most 
conspicuous  and  unyielding  enemy  of  the  principle 
of  compromise  in  the  country.  He  then  took  the 
ground  that  the  time  had  come  to  test  the  strength 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  and  that  any 
concession  would  have  a fatally  weakening  effect. 
In  1850  he  supported  a compromise  which  was  so 
one-sided  that  it  hardly  deserves  the  name.  The 
defence  offered  by  his  friends  on  this  subject  — 
and  it  is  the  strongest  point  they  have  been  able 
to  make  — is  that  these  sacrifices,  or  compromises, 
were  necessary  to  save  the  Union,  and  that — al- 
though they  did  not  prevent  ultimate  secession  — 
they  caused  a delay  of  ten  years,  which  enabled 
the  North  to  gather  sufficient  strength  to  carry 
the  civil  war  to  a successful  conclusion.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  show  historically  that  the  policy  of 
compromise  between  the  national  principle  and 
unlawful  opposition  to  that  principle  was  an  en- 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  309 

tire  mistake  from  the  very  outset,  and  that  if  ille- 
gal and  partisan  State  resistance  had  always  been 
put  down  with  a firm  hand,  civil  war  might  have 
been  avoided.  Nothing  strengthened  the  general 
government  more  than  the  well-judged  and  well- 
timed  display  of  force  by  which  Washington  and 
Hamilton  crushed  the  Whiskey  Rebellion,  or  than 
the  happy  accident  of  peace  in  1814,  which  brought 
the  separatist  movement  in  New  England  to  a sud- 
den end.  After  that  period  Mr.  Clay’s  policy  of 
compromise  prevailed,  and  the  result  was  that  the 
separatist  movement  was  identified  with  the  main- 
tenance of  slavery,  and  steadily  gathered  strength. 
In  1819  the  South  threatened  and  blustered  in 
order  to  prevent  the  complete  prohibition  of  slav- 
ery in  the  Louisiana  purchase.  In  1832  South 
Carolina  passed  the  nullification  ordinance  because 
she  suffered  by  the  operation  of  a protective  tariff. 
In  1850  a great  advance  had  been  made  in  their 
pretensions.  Secession  was  threatened  because 
the  South  feared  that  the  Mexican  conquests  would 
not  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  slavery.  Nothing 
had  been  done,  nothing  was  proposed  even,  preju- 
dicial to  Southern  interests ; but  the  inherent  weak- 
ness of  slavery,  and  the  mild  conciliatory  attitude 
of  Northern  statesmen,  incited  the  South  to  make 
imperious  demands  for  favors,  and  seek  for  positive 
gains.  They  succeeded  in  1850,  and  in  1860  they 
had  reached  the  point  at  which  they  were  ready 
to  plunge  the  country  into  the  horrors  of  civil  war 


310 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


solely  because  they  lost  an  election.  They  be- 
lieved, first,  that  the  North  would  yield  every- 
thing for  the  sake  of  union,  and  secondly,  that  if 
there  was  a limit  to  their  capacity  for  surrender  in 
this  direction,  yet  a people  capable  of  so  much 
submission  in  the  past  would  never  fight  to  main- 
tain the  Union.  The  South  made  a terrible  mis- 
take, and  was  severely  punished  for  it;  but  the 
compromises  of  1820,  1833,  and  1850  furnished 
some  excuse  for  the  wild  idea  that  the  North 
would  not  and  could  not  fight.  Whether  a strict 
adherence  to  the  strong,  fearless  policy  of  Hamil- 
ton, which  was  adopted  by  Jackson  and  advocated 
by  Webster  in  1832-33,  would  have  prevented 
civil  war,  must,  of  course,  remain  matter  of  con- 
jecture. It  is  at  least  certain  that  in  that  way 
alone  could  war  have  been  avoided,  and  that  the 
Clay  policy  of  compromise  made  war  inevitable 
by  encouraging  slave-holders  to  believe  that  they 
could  always  obtain  anything  they  wanted  by  a 
sufficient  show  of  violence. 

It  is  urged,  however,  that  the  policy  of  com- 
promise having  been  adopted,  a change  in  1850 
would  have  simply  precipitated  the  sectional  con- 
flict. In  judging  Mr.  Webster,  the  practical  ques- 
tion, of  course,  is  as  to  the  best  method  of  deal- 
ing with  matters  as  they  actually  were  and  not 
as  they  might  have  been  had  a different  course 
been  pursued  in  1820  and  1832.  The  partisans 
of  Mr.  Webster  have  always  taken  the  ground 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  311 

that  in  1850  the  choice  was  between  compromise 
and  secession;  that  the  events  of  1861  showed 
that  the  South,  in  1850,  was  not  talking  for  mere 
effect;  that  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  was  the 
paramount  consideration  of  a patriotic  statesman ; 
and  that  the  only  practicable  and  proper  course 
was  to  compromise.  Admitting  fully  that  Mr. 
Webster’s  first  and  highest  duty  was  to  preserve 
the  Union,  it  is  perfectly  clear  now,  when  all  these 
events  have  passed  into  history,  that  he  took  the 
surest  way  to  make  civil  war  inevitable,  and  that 
the  position  of  1832  should  not  have  been  aban- 
doned. In  the  first  place,  the  choice  was  not  con- 
fined to  compromise  or  secession.  The  President, 
the  official  head  of  the  Whig  party,  had  recom- 
mended the  admission  of  California,  as  the  only 
matter  actually  requiring  immediate  settlement, 
and  that  the  other  questions  growing  out  of  the 
new  territories  should  be  dealt  with  as  they  arose. 
Mr.  Curtis,  Mr.  Webster’s  biographer,  says  this 
was  an  impracticable  plan,  because  peace  could 
not  be  kept  between  New  Mexico  and  Texas,  and 
because  there  was  great  excitement  about  the 
slavery  question  throughout  the  country.  These 
seem  very  insufficient  reasons,  and  only  the  first 
has  any  practical  bearing  on  the  matter.  Gen- 
eral Taylor  said : Admit  California,  for  that  is  an 
immediate  and  pressing  duty,  and  I will  see  to  it 
that  peace  is  preserved  on  the  Texan  boundary. 
Zachary  Taylor  may  not  have  been  a great  states- 


312 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


man,  but  be  was  a brave  and  skilful  soldier,  and 
an  honest  man,  resolved  to  maintain  the  Union, 
even  if  lie  had  to  shoot  a few  Texans  to  do  it. 
His  policy  was  bold  and  manly,  and  the  fact  that 
it  was  said  to  have  been  inspired  by  Mr.  Seward, 
a leader  in  the  only  Northern  party  which  had 
any  real  principle  to  fight  for,  does  not  seem  such 
a monstrous  idea  as  it  did  in  1850  or  does  still  to 
those  who  sustain  Mr.  Webster’s  action.  That 
General  Taylor’s  policy  was  not  so  wild  and  im- 
practicable as  Mr.  Webster’s  friends  would  have 
us  think,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Benton, 
Democrat  and  Southerner  as  he  was,  but  imbued 
with  the  vigor  of  the  Jackson  school,  believed  that 
each  question  should  be  taken  up  by  itself  and 
settled  on  its  own  merits.  A policy  which  seemed 
wise  to  three  such  different  men  as  Taylor,  Sew- 
ard, and  Benton,  could  hardly  have  been  so  utterly 
impracticable  and  visionary  as  Mr.  Webster’s  par- 
tisans would  like  the  world  to  believe.  It  was  in 
fact  one  of  the  cases  which  that  extremely  practical 
statesman  Nicolo  Machiavelli  had  in  mind  when 
he  wrote  that,  “ Dangers  that  are  seen  afar  off 
are  easily  prevented  ; but  protracting  till  they  are 
near  at  hand,  the  remedies  grow  unseasonable  and 
the  malady  incurable.” 

It  may  be  readily  admitted  that  there  was  a 
great  and  perilous  political  crisis  in  1850,  as  Mr. 
Webster  said.  In  certain  quarters,  in  the  excite- 
ment of  party  strife,  there  was  a tendency  to  de- 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  '313 

ride  Mr.  Webster  as  a “ Union-saver,”  and  to  take 
the  ground  that  there  had  been  no  real  danger  of 
secession.  This,  as  we  can  see  now  very  plainly, 
was  an  unfounded  idea.  When  Congress  met,  the 
danger  of  secession  was  very  real,  although  per- 
haps not  very  near.  The  South,  although  they 
intended  to  secede  as  a last  resort,  had  no  idea 
that  they  should  be  brought  to  that  point.  Men- 
aces of  disunion,  ominous  meetings  and  conven- 
tions, they  probably  calculated,  would  effect  their 
purpose  and  obtain  for  them  what  they  wanted, 
and  subsequent  events  proved  that  they  were  per- 
fectly right  in  this  opinion.  On  February  14  Mi\ 
Webster  wrote  to  Mr.  Harvey  : — 

“ I do  not  partake  in  any  degree  in  those  apprehen- 
sions which  you  say  some  of  our  friends  entertain  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  or  the  breaking  up  of  the  gov- 
ernment. I am  mortified,  it  is  true,  at  the  violent  tone 
assumed  here  by  many  persons,  because  such  violence  in 
debate  only  leads  to  irritation,  and  is,  moreover,  dis- 
creditable to  the  government  and  the  country.  But 
there  is  no  serious  danger,  be  assured,  and  so  assure  our 
friends.” 

The  nest  day  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Furness,  a leader 
of  the  anti-slavery  party,  expressing  his  abhor- 
rence of  slavery  as  an  institution,  his  unwilling- 
ness to  break  up  the  existing  political  system  to 
secure  its  abolition,  and  his  belief  that  the  whole 
matter  must  be  left  with  Divine  Providence.  It 
is  clear  from  this  letter  that  he  had  dismissed  any 


314 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


thought  of  assuming  an  aggressive  attitude  toward 
slavery,  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  lie 
thought  the  Union  could  be  saved  from  wreck 
only  by  substantial  concessions  to  the  South.  Be- 
tween the  date  of  the  letter  to  Harvey  and  March 
7,  Mr.  Curtis  says  that  the  aspect  of  affairs  had 
materially  changed,  and  that  the  Union  was  in 
serious  peril.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Mr. 
Webster  thought  so,  or  that  he  had  altered  the 
opinion  which  he  had  expressed  on  February  14. 
In  fact,  Mr.  Curtis’s  view  is  the  exact  reverse  of 
the  true  state  of  affairs.  If  there  was  any  real 
and  immediate  danger  to  the  Union,  it  existed  on 
February  14,  and  ceased  immediately  afterwards, 
on  February  16,  as  Dr.  Yon  Holst  correctly  says, 
when  the  House  of  Representatives  laid  on  the 
table  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Root  of  Ohio,  prohib- 
iting the  extension  of  slavery  to  the  territories. 
By  that  vote,  the  victory  was  won  by  the  slave- 
power,  and  the  peril  of  speedy  disunion  vanished. 
Nothing  remained  but  to  determine  how  much  the 
South  would  get  from  their  victory,  and  how  hard 
a bargain  they  could  drive.  The  admission  of 
California  was  no  more  of  a concession  than  a res- 
olution not  to  introduce  slavery  in  Massachusetts 
would  have  been.  All  the  rest  of  the  compromise 
plan,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  prohibition 
of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  was 
made  up  of  concessions  to  the  Southern  and  slave- 
holding interest.  That  Henry  Clay  should  have 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  815 

originated  and  advocated  this  scheme  was  per- 
fectly natural.  However  wrong  or  mistaken,  this 
had  been  his  steady  and  unbroken  policy  from  the 
outset,  as  the  best  method  of  preserving  the  Union 
and  advancing  the  cause  of  nationality.  Mr.  Clay 
was  consistent  and  sincere,  and,  however  much  he 
may  have  erred  in  his  general  theory,  he  never 
swerved  from  it.  But  with  Mr.  Webster  the  case 
was  totally  different.  He  had  opposed  the  prin- 
ciple of  compromise  from  the  beginning,  and  in 
1833,  when  concession  was  more  reasonable  than 
in  1850,  he  had  offered  the  most  strenuous  and  un- 
bending resistance.  Now  he  advocated  a compro- 
mise which  was  in  reality  little  less  than  a com- 
plete surrender  on  the  part  of  the  North.  On  the 
general  question  of  compromise  he  was,  of  course, 
grossly  inconsistent,  and  the  history  of  the  time, 
as  it  appears  in  the  cold  light  of  the  present  day, 
shows  plainly  that,  while  he  was  brave  and  true 
and  wise  in  1833,  in  1850  he  was  not  only  incon- 
sistent, but  that  he  erred  deeply  in  policy  and 
statesmanship.  It  has  also  been  urged  in  behalf 
of  Mr.  Webster  that  he  went  no  farther  than  the 
Republicans  in  1860  in  the  way  of  concession,  and 
that  as  in  1860  so  in  1850,  anything  was  permis- 
sible which  served  to  gain  time.  In  the  first 
place,  the  tu  quoque  argument  proves  nothing 
and  has  no  weight.  In  the  second  place,  the  situ- 
ations in  1850  and  in  1860  were  very  different. 

There  were  at  the  former  period,  in  reference  to 


316 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


slavery,  four  parties  in  the  country  — the  Demo- 
crats, the  Free-Soilers,  the  Abolitionists,  and  the 
Whigs.  The  three  first  had  fixed  and  widety- 
varying  opinions  ; the  last  was  trying  to  live  with- 
out opinions,  and  soon  died.  The  pro-slavery 
Democrats  were  logical  and  practical;  the  Aboli- 
tionists were  equally  logical  but  thoroughly  im- 
practicable and  unconstitutional,  avowed  nullifiers 
and  secessionists;  the  Free-Soilers  were  illogical, 
constitutional,  and  perfectly  practical.  As  Repub- 
licans, the  Free-Soilers  proved  the  correctness  and 
good  sense  of  their  position  by  bringing  the  great 
majority  of  the  Northern  people  to  their  support. 
But  at  the  same  time  their  position  was  a diffi- 
cult one,  for  while  they  were  an  anti-slavery  party 
and  had  set  on  foot  constitutional  opposition  to 
the  extension  of  slavery,  their  fidelity  to  the  Con- 
stitution compelled  them  to  admit  the  legality  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  of  slavery  in  the 
States.  They  aimed,  of  course,  first  to  cheek  the 
extension  of  slavery  and  then  to  efface  it  by  grad- 
ual restriction  and  full  compensation  to  slave-hold- 
ers. When  they  had  carried  the  country  in  1860, 
they  found  themselves  face  to  face  with  a break- 
ing Union  and  an  impending  war.  That  many  of 
them  were  seriously  frightened,  and,  to  avoid  war 
and  dissolution,  would  have  made  great  conces- 
sions, cannot  be  questioned  ; but  their  controlling 
motive  was  to  hold  things  together  by  any  means, 
no  matter  how  desperate,  until  they  could  get 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH. 


317 


possession  of  the  government.  This  was  the  only 
possible  and  the  only  wise  policy,  but  that  it 
involved  them  in  some  contradictions  in  that  win- 
ter of  excitement  and  confusion  is  beyond  doubt. 
History  will  judge  the  men  and  events  of  1860  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  but  noth- 
ing that  happened  then  has  any  bearing  on  Mr. 
Webster’s  conduct.  He  must  be  judged  according 
to  the  circumstances  of  1850,  and  the  first  and  most 
obvious  fact  is,  that  he  was  not  fighting  merely  to 
gain  time  and  obtain  control  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment. The  crisis  was  grave  and  serious  in  the 
extreme,  but  neither  war  nor  secession  were  im- 
minent or  immediate,  nor  did  Mr.  Webster  ever 
assert  that  they  were.  He  thought  war  and  seces- 
sion might  come,  and  it  was  against  this  possibility 
and  probability  that  he  sought  to  provide.  He 
wished  to  solve  the  great  problem,  to  remove  the 
source  of  danger,  to  set  the  menacing  agitation 
at  rest.  He  aimed  at  an  enduring  and  definite 
settlement,  and  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  7th 
of  March  speech.  His  reasons  — and  of  course 
they  were  clear  and  weighty  in  his  own  mind  — 
proceeded  from  the  belief  that  this  wretched  com- 
promise measure  offered  a wise,  judicious,  and 
permanent  settlement  of  questions  which,  in  their 
constant  recurrence,  threatened  more  and  more  the 
stability  of  the  Union.  History  has  shown  how 
wofully  mistaken  he  was  in  this  opinion. 

The  last  point  to  be  considered  in  connection 


318 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


with  the  7th  of  March  speech  is  the  ground  then 
taken  by  Mr.  Webster  with  reference  to  the  ex- 
tension of  slavery.  To  this  question  the  speech 
was  chiefly  directed,  and  it  is  the  portion  which 
has  aroused  the  most  heated  discussion.  What 
Mr.  Webster’s  views  had  always  been  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  extension  every  one  knew  then  and 
knows  now.  He  had  been  the  steady  and  uncom- 
promising opponent  of  the  Southern  policy,  and  in 
season  and  out  of  season,  sometimes  vehemently 
sometimes  gently,  but  always  with  firmness  and 
clearness,  he  had  declared  against  it.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  he  departed  from  these  often- 
expressed  opinions  on  the  7th  of  March.  In  the 
speech  itself  he  declared  that  he  had  not  abated 
one  jot  in  his  views  in  this  respect,  and  he  argued 
at  great  length  to  prove  his  consistency,  which,  if 
it  were  to  be  easily  seen  of  men,  certainly  needed 
neither  defence  nor  explanation.  The  crucial  point 
was,  whether,  in  organizing  the  new  territories, 
the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  should  be 
adopted  as  part  of  the  measure.  This  famous  pro- 
viso Mr.  Webster  had  declared  in  1847  to  repre- 
sent exactly  his  own  views.  He  had  then  denied 
that  the  idea  was  the  invention  of  any  one  man, 
and  scouted  the  notion  that  on  this  doctrine  there 
could  be  any  difference  of  opinion  among  Whigs. 
On  March  7 he  announced  that  he  would  not 
have  the  proviso  attached  to  the  territorial  bills, 
and  should  oppose  any  effort  in  that  direction. 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  319 

The  reasons  lie  gave  for  this  apparent  change  were, 
that  nature  had  forbidden  slavery  in  the  newly- 
conquered  regions,  and  that  the  proviso,  under 
such  circumstances,  would  be  a useless  taunt  and 
wanton  insult  to  the  South.  The  famous  sentence 
in  which  he  said  that  he  “ would  not  take  pains 
uselessly  to  reaffirm  an  ordinance  of  nature,  nor 
to  reenact  the  will  of  God,”  was  nothing  but  spe- 
cious and  brilliant  rhetoric.  It  was  perfectly  easy 
to  employ  slaves  in  California,  if  the  people  had 
not  prohibited  it,  and  in  New  Mexico  as  well,  even 
if  there  were  no  cotton  nor  sugar  nor  rice  planta- 
tions in  either,  and  but  little  arable  land  in  the 
latter.  There  was  a classic  form  of  slave-labor 
possible  in  those  countries.  Any  school-boy  could 
have  reminded  Mr.  Webster  of 

“ Seius  whose  eight  hundred  slaves 
Sicken  in  Ilva’s  mines.” 

Mining  was  one  of  the  oldest  uses  to  which 
slave-labor  had  been  applied,  and  it  still  flourished 
in  Siberia  as  the  occupation  of  serfs  and  criminals. 
Mr.  Webster,  of  course,  was  not  ignorant  of  this 
very  obvious  fact ; and  that  nature,  therefore, 
instead  of  forbidding  slave-labor  in  the  Mexican 
conquests,  opened  to  it  a new  and  almost  unlim- 
ited field  in  a region  which  is  to-day  one  of  the 
greatest  mining  countries  in  the  world.  Still  less 
could  he  have  failed  to  know  that  this  form  of 
employment  for  slaves  was  eagerly  desired  by  the 
South ; that  the  slave-holders  fully  recognized 


320 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


their  opportunity,  announced  their  intention  of 
taking  advantage  of  it,  and  were  particularly  in- 
dignant at  the  action  of  California  because  it  had 
closed  to  them  this  inviting  field.  Mr.  Clingman 
of  North  Carolina,  on  January  22,  when  engaged 
in  threatening  war  in  order  to  bring  the  North  to 
terms,  had  said,  in  the  House  of  Representatives : 
“ But  for  the  anti-slavery  agitation  our  Southern 
slave-lioldei’s  would  have  carried  their  negroes  into 
the  mines  of  California  in  such  numbers  that  I have 
no  doubt  but  that  the  majority  there  would  have 
made  it  a slave-holding  State.”  1 At  a later  period 
Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia  declared,  in  the  Senate, 
that  he  knew  of  no  law  of  nature  which  excluded 
slavery  from  California.  “ On  the  contrary,”  he 
said,  “ if  California  had  been  organized  with  a ter- 
ritorial form  of  government  only,  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States  would  have  gone  there  freely,  and 
have  taken  their  slaves  there  in  great  numbers. 
They  would  have  done  so  because  the  value  of  the 
labor  of  that  class  would  have  been  augmented 
to  them  many  hundred  fold.”  2 These  were  the 
views  of  practical  men  and  experienced  slave-own- 
ers who  represented  the  opinions  of  their  con- 
stituents, and  who  believed  that  domestic  slavery 
could  be  employed  to  advantage  anywhere.  More- 
over, the  Southern  leaders  openly  avowed  their 
opposition  to  securing  any  region  to  free  labor 

1 Congressional  Globe,  31st  Congress,  1st  Session,  p.  203. 

2 Ibid.,  Appendix,  p.  510. 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  M ARCH  SPEECH.  321 

exclusively,  no  matter  what  the  ordinances  of 
nature  might  be.  In  1848,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered in  this  connection,  Mr.  Webster  not  only 
urged  the  limitation  of  slave  area,  and  sustained 
the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  this  matter  in 
the  territories,  but  he  did  not  resist  the  final  em- 
bodiment of  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in 
the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Oregon,  where  the 
introduction  of  slavery  was  infinitely  more  unlikely 
than  in  New  Mexico.  Cotton,  sugar,  and  rice  were 
excluded,  perhaps,  by  nature  from  the  Mexican 
conquests,  but  slavery  was  not.  It  was  worse  than 
idle  to  allege  that  a law  of  nature  forbade  slaves 
in  a country  where  mines  gaped  to  receive  them. 
The  facts  are  all  as  plain  as  possible,  and  there  is 
no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  in  opposing  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  in  1850,  Mr.  Webster  abandoned 
his  principles  as  to  the  extension  of  slavery.  He 
practically  stood  forth  as  the  champion  of  the 
Southern  policy  of  letting  the  new  territories 
alone,  which  could  only  result  in  placing  them 
in  the  grasp  of  slavery.  The  consistency  which 
he  labored  so  hard  to  prove  in  his  speech  was 
hopelessly  shattered,  and  no  ingenuity,  either  then 
or  since,  can  restore  it. 

A dispassionate  examination  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
previous  course  on  slavery,  and  a careful  com- 
parison of  it  with  the  ground  taken  in  the  7th 
of  March  speech,  shows  that  he  softened  his  ut- 
terances in  regard  to  slavery  as  a system,  and 
21 


322 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


that  lie  changed  radically  on  the  policy  of  com- 
promise and  on  the  question  of  extending  the  area 
of  slavery.  There  is  a confused  story  that  in  the 
winter  of  1847— 48  he  had  given  the  anti-slavery 
leaders  to  understand  that  he  proposed  to  come 
out  on  their  ground  in  regard  to  Mexico,  and  to 
sustain  Corwin  in  his  attack  on  the  Democratic 
policy,  but  that  he  failed  to  do  so.  The  evidence 
on  this  point  is  entirely  insufficient  to  make  it  of 
importance,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the 
winter  of  1850  Mr.  Webster  talked  with  Mr.  Gid- 
dings,  and  led  him,  and  the  other  Free-Soil  leaders, 
to  believe  that  he  was  meditating  a strong  anti- 
slavery speech.  This  fact  was  clearly  shown  in 
the  recent  newspaper  controversy  which  grew  out 
of  the  celebration  of  the  centennial  anniversary  of 
Webster’s  birth.  It  is  a little  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  this  incident  should  have  roused  such 
bitter  resentment  among  Mr.  Webster’s  surviving 
partisans.  To  suppose  that  Mr.  Webster  made 
the  7th  of  March  speech  after  long  deliberation, 
without  having  a moment’s  hesitation  in  the  mat- 
ter, is  to  credit  him  with  a shameless  disregard  of 
principle  and  consistency,  of  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  believe  him  guilty.  He  undoubtedly  hesi- 
tated, and  considered  deeply  whether  he  should 
assume  the  attitude  of  1833,  and  stand  out  un- 
relentingly against  the  encroachments*  of  slavery. 
He  talked  with  Mr.  Clay  on  one  side.  He  talked 
with  Mr.  Giddings,  and  other  Free-Soilers,  on  the 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  323 

other.  With  the  latter  the  wish  was  no  doubt 
father  to  the  thought,  and  they  may  well  have 
imagined  that  Mr.  Webster  had  determined  to 
go  with  them,  when  he  was  still  in  doubt  and 
merely  trying  the  various  positions.  There  is 
no  need,  however,  to  linger  over  matters  of  this 
sort.  The  change  made  by  Mr.  Webster  can  be 
learned  best  by  careful  study  of  his  own  utter- 
ances, and  of  his  whole  career.  Yet,  at  the  same 
time,  the  greatest  trouble  lies  not  in  the  shifting 
and  inconsistency  revealed  by  an  examination  of 
the  specific  points  which  have  just  been  discussed, 
but  in  the  speech  as  a whole.  In  that  speech  Mr. 
Webster  failed  quite  as  much  by  omissions  as 
by  the  opinions  which  he  actually  announced. 
He  was  silent  when  he  should  have  spoken,  and  he 
spoke  when  he  should  have  held  his  peace.  The 
speech,  if  exactly  defined,  is,  in  reality,  a powerful 
effort,  not  for  compromise  or  for  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  or  any  other  one  thing,  but  to  arrest  the  whole 
anti-slavery  movement,  and  in  that  way  put  an  end 
to  the  dangers  which  threatened  the  Union  and 
restore  lasting  harmony  between  the  jarring  sec- 
tions. It  was  a mad  project.  Mr.  Webster  might 
as  well  have  attempted  to  stay  the  incoming  tide 
at  Marshfield  with  a rampart  of  sand  as  to  seek 
to  check  the  anti-slavery  movement  by  a speech. 
Nevertheless,  he  produced  a great  effect.  His 
mind  once  made  up,  he  spared  nothing  to  win  the 
cast.  He  gathered  all  his  forces ; his  great  intel- 


324 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


lect,  his  splendid  eloquence,  liis  fame  which  had 
become  one  of  the  treasured  possessions  of  his 
country,  — all  were  given  to  the  work.  The  blow 
fell  with  terrible  force,  and  here,  at  last,  we  come 
to  the  real  mischief  which  was  wrought.  The  7th 
of  March  speech  demoralized  New  England  and 
the  whole  North.  The  abolitionists  showed  by 
bitter  anger  the  pain,  disappointment,  and  dismay 
which  this  speech  brought.  The  Free-Soil  party 
quivered  and  sank  for  the  moment  beneath  the 
shock.  The  whole  anti-slaver}''  movement  recoiled. 
The  conservative  reaction  which  Mr.  Webster  en- 
deavored to  produce  came  and  triumphed.  Chiefly 
by  his  exertions  the  compromise  policy  was  ac- 
cepted and  sustained  by  the  country.  The  conser- 
vative elements  everywhere  rallied  to  his  support, 
and  by  his  ability  and  eloquence  it  seemed  as  if  he 
bad  prevailed  and  brought  the  people  over  to  his 
opinions.  It  was  a wonderful  tribute  to  his  power 
and  influence,  but  the  triumph  was  hollow  and 
short-lived.  He  had  attempted  to  compass  an  im- 
possibility. Nothing  could  kill  the  principles  of  hu- 
man liberty,  not  even  a speech  by  Daniel  Webster, 
backed  by  all  his  intellect  and  knowledge,  his  elo- 
quence and  his  renown.  The  anti-slavery  move- 
ment was  checked  for  the  time,  and  pro-slavery 
democracy,  the  only  other  positive  political  force, 
reigned  supreme.  But  amid  the  falling  ruins  of 
the  Whig  party,  and  the  evanescent  success  of  the 
Native  Americans,  the  party  of  human  rights  re- 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  325 

vived;  and  when  it  rose  again,  taught  by  the 
trials  and  misfortunes  of  1850,  it  rose  with  a 
strength  which  Mr.  Webster  had  never  dreamed  of, 
and,  in  1856,  polled  nearly  a million  and  a half 
of  votes  for  Fremont.  The  rise  and  final  triumph 
of  the  Republican  party  was  the  condemnation 
of  the  7th  of  March  speech  and  of  the  policy 
which  put  the  government  of  the  country  in  the 
hands  of  Franklin  Pierce  and  Janies  Buchanan. 
When  the  war  came,  inspiration  was  not  found  in 
the  7th  of  March  speech.  In  that  dark  hour,  men 
remembered  the  Daniel  Webster  who  replied  to 
Hayne,  and  turned  away  from  the  man  who  had 
sought  for  peace  by  advocating  the  great  compro- 
mise of  Henry  Clay. 

The  disapprobation  and  disappointment  which 
were  manifested  in  the  North  after  the  7th  of 
March  speech  could  not  be  overlooked.  Men 
thought  and  said  that  Mr.  Webster  had  spoken  in 
behalf  of  the  South  and  of  slavery.  Whatever  his 
intentions  may  have  been,  this  was  what  the  speech 
seemed  to  mean  and  this  was  its  effect,  and  the 
North  saw  it  more  and  more  clearly  as  time  went 
on.  Mr.  Webster  never  indulged  in  personal  at- 
tacks, but  at  the  same  time  he  was  too  haughty  a 
man  ever  to  engage  in  an  exchange  of  compliments 
in  debate.  He  never  was  in  the  habit  of  saying 
pleasant  things  to  his  opponents  in  the  Senate 
merely  as  a matter  of  agreeable  courtesy.  In  this 
direction,  as  in  its  opposite,  he  usually  maintained 


826 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


a cold  silence.  But  on  the  7th  of  March  he  elab- 
orately complimented  Calhoun,  and  went  out  of 
his  way  to  flatter  Virginia  and  Mr.  Mason  person- 
ally. This  struck  close  observers  with  surprise, 
but  it  was  the  real  purpose  of  the  speech  which 
went  home  to  the  people  of  the  North.  He  had 
advocated  measures  which  with  slight  exceptions 
were  altogether  what  the  South  wanted,  and  the 
South  so  understood  it.  On  the  30th  of  March 
Mr.  Morehead  wrote  to  Mr.  Crittenden  that  Mr. 
Webster’s  appointment  as  Secretary  of  State 
would  now  be  very  acceptable  to  the  South.  No 
more  bitter  commentary  could  have  been  made. 
The  people  were  blinded  and  dazzled  at  first,  but 
they  gradually  awoke  and  perceived  the  error  that 
had  been  committed. 

Mr.  Webster,  however,  needed  nothing  from 
outside  to  inform  him  as  to  his  conduct  and  its 
results.  At  the  bottom  of  his  heart  and  in  the 
depths  of  his  conscience  he  knew  that  he  had  made 
a dreadful  mistake.  He  did  not  flinch.  He  went 
on  in  his  new  path  without  apparent  faltering. 
His  speech  on  the  compromise  measures  went  fai’- 
ther  than  that  of  the  7th  of  March.  But  if  we 
study  his  speeches  and  letters  between  1850  and 
the  day  of  his  death,  we  can  detect  changes  in 
them  which  show  plainly  enough  that  the  writer 
was  not  at  ease,  that  he  was  not  master  of  that 
real  conscience  of  which  he  boasted. 

His  friends,  after  the  first  shock  of  surprise,  ral 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  327 

lied  to  bis  support,  and  be  spoke  frequently  at 
union  meetings,  and  undertook,  by  making  im- 
mense efforts,  to  convince  tbe  country  that  the 
compromise  measures  were  right  and  necessary, 
and  that  tbe  doctrines  of  the  7th  of  March  speech 
ought  to  be  sustained.  In  pursuance  of  this  ob- 
ject, during  the  winter  of  1850  and  the  summer 
of  the  following  year,  he  wrote  several  public  let- 
ters on  the  compromise  measures,  and  he  ad- 
dressed great  meetings  on  various  occasions,  in 
New  England,  New  York,  and  as  far  south  as  Vir- 
ginia. We  are  at  once  struck  by  a marked  change 
in  the  character  and  tone  of  these  speeches,  which 
produced  a great  effect  in  establishing  the  compro- 
mise policy.  It  had  never  been  Mr.  Webster’s 
habit  to  misrepresent  or  abuse  his  opponents. 
Now  he  confounded  the  extreme  separatism  of  the 
abolitionists  and  the  constitutional  opposition  of 
the  Free-Soil  party,  and  involved  all  opponents 
of  slavery  in  a common  condemnation.  It  was 
wilful  misrepresentation  to  talk  of  the  Free-Soil- 
ers  as  if  they  were  identical  with  the  abolitionists, 
and  no  one  knew  better  than  Mr.  Webster  the 
distinction  between  the  two,  one  being  ready  to 
secede  to  get  rid  of  slavery,  the  other  offering  only 
a constitutional  resistance  to  its  extension.  His 
tone  toward  his  opponents  was  correspondingly 
bitter.  When  he  first  arrived  in  Boston,  after  his 
speech,  and  spoke  to  the  great  crowd  in  front  of 
the  Revere  House,  he  said,  “ I shall  support  no 


328 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


agitations  having  their  foundations  in  unreal, 
ghostly  abstractions.”  Slavery  had  now  become 
“an  unreal,  ghostly  abstraction,”  although  it  must 
still  have  appeared  to  the  negroes  something  very 
like  a hard  fact.  There  were  men  in  that  crowd, 
too,  who  had  not  forgotten  the  noble  words  with 
which  Mr.  Webster  in  1837  had  defended  the 
character  of  the  opponents  of  slavery,  and  the 
sound  of  this  new  gospel  from  his  lips  fell 
strangely  on  their  ears.  So  he  goes  on  from  one 
union  meeting  to  another,  and  in  speech  after 
speech  there  is  the  same  bitter  tone  which  had 
been  so  foreign  to  him  in  all  his  previous  utter- 
ances. The  supporters  of  the  anti-slavery  move- 
ment he  denounces  as  insane.  He  reiterates  his 
opposition  to  slave  extension,  and  in  the  same 
breath  argues  that  the  Union  must  be  preserved 
by  giving  way  to  the  South.  The  feeling  is  upon 
him  that  the  old  parties  are  breaking  down  under 
the  pressure  of  this  “ghostly  abstraction,”  this  agi- 
tation which  he  tries  to  prove  to  the  young  men 
of  the  country  and  to  his  fellow-citizens  every- 
where is  “ wholly  factitious.”  The  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  is  not  in  the  form  which  he  wants,  but  still  he 
defends  it  and  supports  it.  The  first  fruits  of  his 
policy  of  peace  are  seen  in  riots  in  Boston,  and  he 
personally  advises  with  a Boston  lawyer  who  has 
undertaken  the  cases  against  the  fugitive  slaves. 
It  was  undoubtedly  his  duty,  as  Mr.  Curtis  says,  to 
enforce  and  support  the  law  as  the  President’s  ad* 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  329 

viser,  but  his  personal  attention  and  interest  were 
not  required  in  slave  cases,  nor  would  they  have 
been  given  a year  before.  The  Wilmot  Proviso, 
that  doctrine  which  he  claimed  as  his  own  in 
1847,  when  it  was  a sentiment  on  which  Whigs 

7 o 

could  not  differ,  he  now  calls  “ a mere  abstrac- 
tion.” He  struggles  to  put  slavery  aside  for  the 
tariff,  but  it  will  not  down  at  his  bidding,  and  he 
himself  cannot  leave  it  alone.  Finally  he  con- 
cludes this  compromise  campaign  with  a great 
speech  on  laying  the  foundation  of  the  capitol  ex- 
tension, and  makes  a pathetic  appeal  to  the  South 
to  maintain  the  Union.  They  are  not  pleasant 
to  read,  these  speeches  in  the  Senate  and  before 
the  people  in  behalf  of  the  compromise  policy. 
They  are  harsh  and  bitter ; they  do  not  ring  true. 
Daniel  Webster  knew  when  he  was  delivering 
them  that  that  was  not  the  way  to  save  the  Union, 
or  that,  at  all  events,  it  was  not  the  right  way 
for  him  to  do  it. 

The  same  peculiarity  can  be  discerned  in  his 
letters.  The  fun  and  humor  which  had  hitherto 
run  through  his  correspondence  seems  now  to  fade 
away  as  if  blighted.  On  September  10,  1850, 
he  writes  to  Mr.  Harvey  that  since  March  7 
there  has  not  been  an  hour  in  which  he  has  not 
felt  a “crushing  sense  of  anxiety  and  responsibil- 
ity.” He  couples  this  with  the  declaration  that 
his  own  part  is  acted  and  he  is  satisfied ; but  if 
his  anxiety  was  solely  of  a public  nature,  why 


330 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


did  it  date  from  March  7,  when,  prior  to  that 
time,  there  was  much  greater  cause  for  alarm  than 
afterwards.  In  everything  he  said  or  wrote  he 
continually  recurs  to  the  slavery  question  and  al- 
ways in  a defensive  tone,  usually  with  a sneer  or 
a fling  at  the  abolitionists  and  anti-slavery  party. 
The  spirit  of  unrest  had  seized  him.  He  was  dis- 
turbed and  ill  at  ease.  He  never  admitted  it, 
even  to  himself,  but  his  mind  was  not  at  peace, 
and  he  could  not  conceal  the  fact.  Posterity  can 
see  the  evidences  of  it  plainly  enough,  and  a man 
of  his  intellect  and  fame  knew  that  with  posterity 
the  final  reckoning  must  be  made.  No  man  can 
say  that  Mr.  Webster  anticipated  the  unfavorable 
judgment  which  his  countrymen  have  passed  upon 
his  conduct,  but  that  in  his  heart  he  feared  such 
a judgment  cannot  be  doubted. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  with  perfect  accu- 
racy any  man’s  motives  in  what  he  says  or  does. 
They  are  so  complex,  they  are  so  often  undefined, 
even  in  the  mind  of  the  man  himself,  that  no  one 
can  pretend  to  make  an  absolutely  correct  analy- 
sis. There  have  been  many  theories  as  to  the 
motives  which  led  Mr.  Webster  to  make  the  7th 
of  March  speech.  In  the  heat  of  contemporary 
strife  his  enemies  set  it  down  as  a mere  bid  to  se- 
cure Southern  support  for  the  presidency,  but  this 
is  a harsh  and  narrow  view.  The  longing  for  the 
presidency  weakened  Mr.  Webster  as  a public  man 
from  the  time  when  it  first  took  possession  of  him 


THE  SEVENTH  OF  MARCH  SPEECH.  331 

after  the  reply  to  Hayne.  It  undoubtedly  had  a 
weakening  effect  upon  him  in  the  winter  of  1850, 
and  had  some  influence  upon  the  speech  of  the  7th 
of  March.  But  it  is  unjust  to  say  that  it  did  more. 
It  certainly  was  far  removed  from  being  a control- 
ling motive.  His  friends,  on  the  other  hand,  de- 
clare that  he  was  governed  solely  by  the  highest 
and  most  disinterested  patriotism,  by  the  truest 
wisdom.  This  explanation,  like  that  of  his  foes, 
fails  by  going  too  far  and  being  too  simple.  His 
motives  were  mixed.  His  chief  desire  was  to  pre- 
serve and  maintain  the  Union.  He  wished  to  stand 
forth  as  the  great  saviour  and  pacificator.  On 
the  one  side  was  the  South,  compact,  aggressive, 
bound  together  by  slavery,  the  greatest  political 
force  in  the  country.  On  the  other  was  a weak 
Free-Soil  party,  and  a widely  diffused  and  earnest 
moral  sentiment  without  organization  or  tangible 
political  power.  Mr.  Webster  concluded  that  the 
way  to  save  the  Union  and  the  Constitution,  and 
to  achieve  the  success  which  he  desired,  was  to  go 
with  the  heaviest  battalions.  He  therefore  es- 
poused the  Southern  side,  for  the  compromise  was 
in  the  Southern  interest,  and  smote  the  anti-slav- 
ery movement  with  all  his  strength.  He  reasoned 
correctly  that  peace  could  come  only  by  adminis- 
tering a severe  check  to  one  of  the  two  contending 
parties.  He  erred  in  attempting  to  arrest  the  one 
which  all  modern  history  showed  was  irresistible. 
It  is  no  doubt  true,  as  appears  by  his  cabinet  opin> 


332 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


ion  recently  printed,  that  he  stood  ready  to  meet 
the  first  overt  act  on  the  part  of  the  South  with 
force.  Mr.  Webster  would  not  have  hesitated  to 
have  struck  hard  at  any  body  of  men  or  any  State 
which  ventured  to  assail  the  Union.  But  he  also 
believed  that  the  true  way  to  prevent  any  overt 
act  on  the  part  of  the  South  was  by  concession, 
and  that  was  precisely  the  object  which  the  South- 
ern leaders  sought  to  obtain.  We  may  grant  all 
the  patriotism  and  all  the  sincere  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  the  Constitution  which  is  claimed  for  him, 
but  nothing  can  acquit  Mr.  Webster  of  error  in  the 
methods  which  he  chose  to  adopt  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  peace  and  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
If  the  7th  of  March  speech  was  right,  then  all 
that  had  gone  before  was  false  and  wrong.  In 
that  speech  he  broke  from  his  past,  from  his  own 
principles  and  from  the  principles  of  New  Eng- 
land, and  closed  his  splendid  public  career  with  a 
terrible  mistake. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 

The  story  of  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
public  life,  outside  of  and  apart  from  the  slavery 
question,  can  be  quickly  told.  General  Taylor 
died  suddenly  on  July  9,  1850,  and  this  event  led 
to  an  immediate  and  complete  reorganization  of 
the  cabinet.  Mr.  Fillmore  at  once  offered  the 
post  of  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Webster,  who 
accepted  it,  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  and, 
on  July  23,  assumed  his  new  position.  No  great 
negotiation  like  that  with  Lord  Ashburton  marked 
this  second  term  of  office  in  the  Department  of 
State,  but  there  were  a number  of  important  and 
some  very  complicated  affairs,  which  Mr.  Web- 
ster managed  with  the  wisdom,  tact,  and  dignity 
which  made  him  so  admirably  fit  for  this  high  po- 
sition. 

The  best-known  incident  of  this  period  was 
that  which  gave  rise  to  the  famous  “ Hulsemann 
letter.”  President  Taylor  had  sent  an  agent  to 
Hungary  to  report  upon  the  condition  of  the  revo- 
lutionary government,  with  the  intention  of  recog- 
nizing it  if  there  were  sufficient  grounds  for  doing 
so.  When  the  agent  arrived,  the  revolution  was 


334 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


crushed,  and  he  reported  to  the  President  against 
recognition.  These  papers  were  transmitted  to  the 
Senate  in  March,  1850.  Mr.  Hiilsemann,  the  Aus- 
trian charge , thereupon  complained  of  the  action 
of  our  administration,  and  Mr.  Clayton,  then  Sec- 
retary of  State,  replied  that  the  mission  of  the 
agent  had  been  simply  to  gather  information.  On 
receiving  further  instructions  from  his  government, 
Mr.  Hiilsemann  rejoined  to  Mr.  Clayton,  and  it 
fell  to.  Mr.  W ebster  to  reply,  which  he  did  on  De- 
cember 21, 1850.  The  note  of  the  Austrian  charg6 
was  in  a hectoring  and  highly  offensive  tone,  and 
Mr.  Webster  felt  the  necessity  of  administering  a 
sharp  rebuke.  “ The  Hiilsemann  letter,”  as  it 
was  called,  was  accordingly  dispatched.  It  set 
forth  strongly  the  right  of  the  United  States  and 
their  intention  to  recognize  any  de  facto  revolu- 
tionary government,  and  to  seek  information  in  all 
proper  ways  in  order  to  guide  their  action.  The 
argument  on  this  point  was  admirably  and  forcibly 
stated,  and  it  was  accompanied  by  a bold  vindica- 
tion of  the  American  policy,  and  by  some  severe 
and  wholesome  reproof.  Mr.  Webster  had  two 
objects.  One  was  to  awaken  the  people  of  Europe 
to  a sense  of  the  greatness  of  this  country,  the 
other  to  touch  the  national  pride  at  home.  He 
did  both.  The  foreign  representatives  learned  a 
lesson  which  they  never  forgot,  and  which  opened 
their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  we  were  no  longer  col- 
onies, and  the  national  pride  was  also  aroused 


THE  LAST  TEALS. 


835 


Mr.  Webster  admitted  that  the  letter  was,  in  some 
respects,  boastful  and  rough.  This  was  a fair  crit- 
icism, and  it  may  be  justly  said  that  such  a tone 
was  hardly  worthy  of  the  author.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  Hulsemann’s  impertinence  fully  justi- 
fied such  a reply,  and  a little  rough  domineering 
was,  perhaps,  the  very  thing  needed.  It  is  certain 
that  the  letter  fully  answered  Mr.  Webster’s  pur- 
pose, and  excited  a great  deal  of  popular  enthusi- 
asm. The  affair  did  not,  however,  end  here.  Mr. 
Hiilsemann  became  very  mild,  but  he  soon  lost  his 
temper  again.  Kossuth  and  the  refugees  in  Tur- 
key were  brought  to  this  country  in  a United 
States  frigate.  The  Hungarian  hero  was  received 
with  a burst  of  enthusiasm  that  induced  him  to 
hope  for  substantial  aid,  which  was,  of  course, 
wholly  visionary.  The  popular  excitement  made 
it  difficult  for  Mr.  Webster  to  steer  a proper 
course,  but  he  succeeded,  by  great  tact,  in  showing 
his  own  sympathy,  and,  so  far  as  possible,  that  of 
the  government,  for  the  cause  of  Hungarian  inde- 
pendence and  for  its  leader,  without  going  too  far 
or  committing  any  indiscretion  which  could  justify 
a breach  of  international  relations  with  Austria. 
Mr.  Webster's  course,  including  a speech  at  a 
dinner  in  Boston,  in  which  he  made  an  eloquent 
allusion  to  Hungary  and  Kossuth,  although  care- 
fully guarded,  aroused  the  ire  of  Mr.  Hiilsemann, 
who  left  the  country,  after  writing  a letter  of  in- 
dignant farewell  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  Mr. 


336 


DANIEL  WEBS  TER. 


Webster  replied,  through  Mr.  Hunter,  with  ex- 
treme coolness,  confining  himself  to  an  approval 
of  the  gentleman  selected  by  Mr.  Hiilsemann  to 
represent  Austria  after  the  latter's  departure. 

The  other  affairs  which  occupied  Mr.  Webster’s 
official  attention  at  this  time  made  less  noise  than 
that  with  Austria,  but  they  were  more  compli- 
cated and  some  of  them  far  more  perilous  to  the 
peace  of  the  country.  The  most  important  was 
that  growing  out  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  in 
regard  to  the  neutrality  of  the  contemplated  canal 
in  Nicaragua.  This  led  to  a prolonged  correspond- 
ence about  the  protectorate  of  Great  Britain  in 
Nicaragua,  and  to  a withdrawal  of  her  claim  to 
exact  port-charges.  It  is  interesting  to  observe 
the  influence  which  Mr.  Webster  at  once  obtained 
with  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  and  the  respect  in  which 
he  was  held  by  that  experienced  diplomatist.  Be- 
sides this  discussion  with  England,  there  was  a 
sharp  dispute  with  Mexico  about  the  right  of  way 
over  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  and  the  troubles 
on  the  Texan  boundary  before  Congress  had  acted 
upon  the  subject.  Then  came  the  Lopez  invasion 
of  Cuba,  supported  by  bodies  of  volunteers  en- 
listed in  the  United  States,  which,  by  its  failure 
and  its  results,  involved  our  goveniment  in  a num- 
ber of  difficult  questions.  The  most  serious  was 
the  riot  at  New  Orleans,  where  the  Spanish  consul- 
ate was  sacked  by  a mob.  To  render  due  reparation 
for  this  outrage  without  wounding  the  national 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


337 


pride  by  apparent  humiliation  was  no  easy  task. 
Mr.  Webster  settled  everything,  however,  with  a 
judgment,  tact,  and  dignity  which  prevented  war 
with  Spain  and  yet  excited  no  resentment  at  home. 
At  a later  period,  when  the  Kossuth  affair  was 
drawing  to  an  end,  the  perennial  difficulty  about 
the  fisheries  revived  and  was  added  to  our  Central 
American  troubles  with  Great  Britain,  and  this, 
together  with  the  affair  of  the  Lobos  Islands,  oc- 
cupied Mr.  Webster's  attention,  and  drew  forth 
some  able  and  important  dispatches  during  the 
summer  of  1852,  in  the  last  months  of  his  life. 

While  the  struggle  was  in  progress  to  convince 
the  country  of  the  value  and  justice  of  the  com- 
promise measures  and  to  compel  their  acceptance, 
another  presidential  election  drew  on.  It  was  the 
signal  for  the  last  desperate  attempt  to  obtain  the 
Whig  nomination  for  Mr.  Webster,  and  it  seemed 
at  first  sight  as  if  the  party  must  finally  take  up  the 
New  England  leader.  Mr.  Clay  was  wholly  out 
of  the  race,  and  his  last  hour  was  near.  Thei’e 
was  absolutely  no  one  who,  in  fame,  ability,  pub- 
lic services,  and  experience  could  be  compared  for 
one  moment  with  Mr.  Webster.  The  opportunity 
was  obvious  enough  ; it  awakened  all  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s hopes,  and  excited  the  ardor  of  his  friends. 
A formal  and  organized  movement,  such  as  had 
never  before  been  made,  was  set  on  foot  to  pro- 
mote his  candidacy,  and  a vigorous  and  earnest 
address  to  the  people  was  issued  by  his  friends  in 


338 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Massachusetts.  The  result  demonstrated,  if  dem- 
onstration were  needed,  that  Mr.  Webster  had 
not,  even  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances, 
the  remotest  chance  for  the  presidency.  His 
friends  saw  this  plainly  enough  before  the  con- 
vention met,  but  he  himself  regarded  the  great 
prize  as  at  last  surely  within  his  grasp.  Mr. 
Choate,  who  was  to  lead  the  Webster  delegates, 
went  to  Washington  the  day  before  the  convention 
assembled.  He  called  on  Mr.  Webster  and  found 
him  so  filled  with  the  belief  that  he  should  be 
nominated  that  it  seemed  cruel  to  undeceive  him. 
Mr.  Choate,  at  all  events,  had  not  the  heart  for  the 
task,  and  went  back  to  Baltimore  to  lead  the  forlorn 
hope  with  gallant  fidelity  and  with  an  eloquence 
as  brilliant  if  not  so  grand  as  that  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster himself.  A majority  1 of  the  convention  di- 
vided their  votes  very  unequally  between  Mr. 
Fillmore  and  Mr.  Webster,  the  former  receiving 
133,  the  latter  29,  on  the  first  ballot,  while  Gen- 
eral Scott  had  131.  Forty-five  ballots  were  taken, 
without  any  substantial  change,  and  then  General 
Scott  began  to  increase  his  strength,  and  was  nomi- 
nated on  the  fifty-third  ballot,  receiving  159  votes. 
Most  of  General  Scott’s  supporters  were  opposed 

1 Mr.  Curtis  says  a “ great  majority  continued  to  divide  their 
votes  between  Mr.  Fillmore  and  Mr.  Webster.”  The  highest 
number  reached  by  the  combined  Webster  and  Fillmore  votes,  on 
any  one  ballot,  was  162,  three  more  than  was  received  on  the 
last  ballot  by  General  Scott,  who,  Mr.  Curtis  correctly  says,  ob< 
tained  only  a “ few  votes  more  than  the  necessary  majority.” 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


389 


to  resolutions  sustaining  the  compromise  meas- 
ures, while  those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Fillmore  and 
Mr.  Webster  favored  that  policy.  General  Scott 
owed  his  nomination  to  a compromise,  which  con- 
sisted in  inserting  in  the  platform  a clause 
strongly  approving  Mr.  Clay’s  measui’es.  Mr. 
Webster  expected  the  Fillmore  delegates  to  come 
to  him,  an  unlikely  event  when  they  were  so 
much  more  numerous  than  his  friends,  and,  more- 
over, they  never  showed  the  slightest  inclination 
to  do  so.  They  were  chiefly  from  the  South,  and 
as  they  chose  to  consider  Mr.  Fillmore  and  not 
his  secretary  the  representative  of  compromise, 
they  reasonably  enough  expected  the  latter  to  give 
way.  The  desperate  stubbornness  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster's adherents  resulted  in  the  nomination  of 
Scott.  It  seemed  hard  that  the  Southern  Whigs 
should  have  done  so  little  for  Mr.  Webster  after 
he  had  done  and  sacrificed  so  much  to  advance 
and  defend  their  interests.  But  the  South  was 
practical.  In  the  7tli  of  March  speech  they  had 
got  from  Mr.  Webster  all  they  could  expect  or 
desire.  It  was  quite  possible,  in  fact  it  was  highly 
probable,  that,  once  in  the  presidency,  he  could 
not  be  controlled  or  guided  by  the  slave-power  or 
by  any  other  sectional  influence.  Mr.  Fillmore, 
inferior  in  every  way  to  Mr.  Webster  in  intellect, 
in  force,  in  reputation,  would  give  them  a mild, 
safe  administration  and  be  easily  influenced  by 
the  South.  Mr.  Webster  had  served  his  turn,  and 


340 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


the  men  whose  cause  he  had  advocated  and  whose 
interests  he  had  protected  cast  him  aside. 

The  loss  of  the  nomination  was  a bitter  disap- 
pointment to  Mr.  Webster.  It  was  the  fashion  in 
certain  quarters  to  declare  that  it  killed  him,  but 
this  was  manifestly  absurd.  The  most  that  can  be 
said  in  this  respect  was,  that  the  excitement  and 
depression  caused  by  his  defeat  preyed  upon  his 
mind  and  thereby  facilitated  the  inroads  of  disease, 
while  it  added  to  the  clouds  which  darkened  round 
him  in  those  last  days.  But  his  course  of  action 
after  the  convention  cannot  be  passed  over  with- 
out comment.  He  refused  to  give  his  adhesion  to 
General  Scott’s  nomination,  and  he  advised  his 
friends  to  vote  for  Mr.  Pierce,  because  the  Whigs 
were  divided,  while  the  Democrats  were  unani- 
mously determined  to  resist  all  attempts  to  renew 
the  slavery  agitation.  This  course  was  absolutely 
indefensible.  If  the  Whig  party  was  so  divided 
on  the  slavery  question  that  Mr.  Webster  could 
not  support  their  nominee,  then  he  had  no  busi- 
ness to  seek  a nomination  at  their  hands,  for  they 
wei’e  as  much  divided  before  the  convention  as 
afterwards.  He  chose  to  come  before  that  conven- 
tion, knowing  perfectly  well  the  divisions  of  the 
party,  and  that  the  nomination  might  fall  to  Gen- 
eral Scott.  He  saw  fit  to  play  the  game,  and 
was  in  honor  bound  to  abide  by  the  rules.  He 
had  no  right  to  say  “it  is  heads  I win,  and  tails 
you  lose.”  If  he  had  been  nominated  he  would 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


341 


have  indignantly  and  justly  denounced  a refusal 
on  the  part  of  General  Scott  and  his  friends  to 
support  him.  It  is  the  merest  sophistry  to  say 
that  Mr.  Webster  was  too  great  a man  to  be 
bound  by  party  usages,  and  tbat  he  owed  it  to 
himself  to  rise  above  them,  and  refuse  his  support 
to  a poor  nomination  and  to  a wrangling  party. 
If  Mr.  Webster  could  no  longer  act  with  the 
Whigs,  then  his  name  had  no  business  in  that 
convention  at  Baltimore,  for  the  conditions  were 
the  same  before  its  meeting  as  afterward.  Great 
man  as  he  was,  he  was  not  too  great  to  behave 
honorably  ; and  his  refusal  to  support  Scott,  after 
having  been  his  rival  for  a nomination  at  the 
hands  of  their  common  party,  was  neither  honor- 
able nor  just.  If  Mr.  Webster  had  decided  to 
leave  the  Whigs  and  act  independently,  he  was  in 
honor  bound  to  do  so  before  the  Baltimore  conven- 
tion assembled,  or  to  have  warned  the  delegates 
that  such  was  his  intention  in  the  event  of  Gen- 
eral Scott's  nomination.  He  had  no  right  to  stand 
the  hazard  of  the  die,  and  then  refuse  to  abide  by 
the  result.  The  Whig  party,  in  its  best  estate, 
was  not  calculated  to  excite  a very  warm  enthusi- 
asm in  the  breast  of  a dispassionate  posterity,  and 
it  is  perfectly  true  that  it  was  on  the  eve  of  ruin 
in  1852.  But  it  appeared  better  then,  in  the 
point  of  self-respect,  than  four  years  before.  In 
1848  the  Whigs  nominated  a successful  soldier 
conspicuous  only  for  his  availability  and  without 


342 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


knowing  to  what  part}7  he  belonged.  They  main- 
tained absolute  silence  on  the  great  question  of 
the  extension  of  slavery,  and  carried  on  their 
campaign  on  the  personal  popularity  of  their  can- 
didate. Mr.  Webster  was  righteously  disgusted 
at  their  candidate  and  their  negative  attitude. 
He  could  justly  and  properly  have  left  them  on 
a question  of  principle  ; but  he  swallowed  the 
nomination,  “ not  fit  to  be  made,”  and  gave  to 
his  party  a decided  and  public  support.  In  1852 
the  Whigs  nominated  another  successful  soldier, 
who  was  known  to  be  a Whig,  and  who  had  been 
a candidate  for  their  nomination  before.  In  their 
platform  they  formally  adopted  the  essential  prin- 
ciple demanded  by  Mr.  Webster,  and  declared  their 
adhesion  to  the  compromise  measures.  If  there 
was  disaffection  in  regard  to  this  declaration  of 
1852,  there  was  disaffection  also  about  the  silence 
of  1848.  In  the  former  case,  Mr.  Webster  ad- 
hered to  the  nomination  ; in  the  latter,  he  rejected 
it.  In  1848  he  might  still  hope  to  be  President 
through  a Whig  nomination.  In  1852  he  knew 
that,  even  if  he  lived,  there  would  never  be  another 
chance.  He  gave  vent  to  his  disappointment,  put 
no  constraint  upon  himself,  prophesied  the  down- 
fall of  his  party,  and  advised  his  friends  to  vote 
for  Franklin  Pierce.  It  was  perfectly  logical,  after 
advocating  the  compromise  measures,  to  advise 
giving  the  government  into  the  hands  of  a party 
controlled  by  the  South.  Mr.  Webster  would  have 


TEE  LAST  TEARS. 


348 


been  entirely  reasonable  in  taking  such  a course 
before  the  B altimore  convention.  He  had  no  right 
to  do  so  after  he  had  sought  a nomination  from  the 
Whigs,  and  it  was  a breach  of  faith  to  act  as  he 
did.  to  advise  his  friends  to  desert  a falling  party 
and  vote  for  the  Democratic  candidate. 

After  the  acceptance  of  the  Department  of 
State,  Air.  Webster's  health  became  seriously  im- 
paired. His  exertions  in  advocating  the  compro- 
mise measures,  his  official  labors,  and  the  in- 
creased severity  of  his  annual  hay-fever,  — all 
contributed  to  debilitate  him.  His  iron  consti- 
tution weakened  in  various  ways,  and  especially 
by  frequent  periods  of  intense  mental  exertion,  to 
which  were  superadded  the  excitement  and  ner- 
vous strain  inseparable  from  his  career,  was  be- 
ginning to  give  way.  Slowly  but  surely  he  lost 
ground.  His  spirits  began  to  lose  their  elasticity, 
and  he  rarely  spoke  without  a tinge  of  deep  sad- 
ness being  apparent  in  all  he  said.  In  May,  1852, 
while  driving  near  Marshfield,  he  was  thrown 
from  his  carriage  with  much  violence,  injuring 
his  wrists,  and  receiving  other  severe  contusions. 
The  shock  was  very  great,  and  undoubtedly  accel- 
erated the  progress  of  the  fatal  organic  disease 
which  was  sapping  his  life.  This  physical  injury 
was  followed,  by  the  keen  disappointment  of  his 
defeat  at  Baltimore,  which  preyed  upon  his  heart 
and  mind.  During  the  summer  of  1852  his  health 
gave  way  more  rapidly.  He  longed  to  resign,  but 


344 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


Mr.  Fillmore  insisted  on  his  retaining  his  office. 
In  July  he  came  to  Boston,  where  he  was  wel- 
comed by  a great  public  meeting,  and  hailed  with 
enthusiastic  acclamations,  which  did  much  to 
soothe  his  wounded  feelings.  He  still  continued 
to  transact  the  business  of  his  department,  and  in 
August  went  to  Washington,  where  he  remained 
until  the  8th  of  September,  when  he  returned  to 
Marshfield.  On  the  20th  he  went  to  Boston,  for 
the  last  time,  to  consult  his  physician.  He  ap- 
peared at  a friend’s  house,  one  evening,  for  a few 
moments,  and  all  who  then  saw  him  were  shocked 
at  the  look  of  illness  and  suffering  in  his  face.  It 
was  his  last  visit.  He  went  back  to  Marshfield  the 
next  day,  never  to  return.  He  now  failed  rapidly. 
His  nights  were  sleepless,  and  there  were  scarcely 
any  intervals  of  ease  or  improvement.  The  decline 
was  steady  and  sure,  and  as  October  wore  away 
the  end  drew  near.  Mr.  Webster  faced  it  with 
courage,  cheerfulness,  and  dignity,  in  a religious 
and  trusting  spirit,  with  a touch  of  the  personal 
pride  which  was  part  of  his  nature.  He  remained 
perfectly  conscious  and  clear  in  his  mind  almost 
to  the  very  last  moment,  bearing  his  sufferings 
with  perfect  fortitude,  and  exhibiting  the  tender- 
est  affection  toward  the  wife  and  son  and  friends 
who  watched  over  him.  On  the  evening  of  Octo- 
ber 23  it  became  apparent  that  he  was  sinking, 
but  his  one  wish  seemed  to  be  that  he  might  be 
conscious  when  he  was  actually  dying.  After 


TEE  LAST  TEARS. 


345 


midnight  he  roused  from  an  uneasy  sleep,  strug- 
gled for  consciousness,  and  ejaculated,  “ I still 
live.”  These  were  his  last  words.  Shortly  after 
three  o’clock  the  labored  breathing  ceased,  and  all 
was  over. 

A hush  fell  upon  the  country  as  the  news  of  his 
death  sped  over  the  land.  A great  gap  seemed  to 
have  been  made  in  the  existence  of  every  one. 
Men  remembered  the  grandeur  of  his  form  and 
the  splendor  of  his  intellect,  and  felt  as  if  one  of 
the  pillars  of  the  state  had  fallen.  The  profound 
grief  and  deep  sense  of  loss  produced  by  his  death 
were  the  highest  tributes  and  the  most  convinc-^ 
ing  proofs  of  his  greatness. 

In  accordance  with  his  wishes,  all  public  forms 
and  ceremonies  were  dispensed  with.  The  fu- 
neral took  place  at  his  home  on  Friday,  Octo- 
ber 29.  Thousands  flocked  to  Marshfield  to  do 
honor  to  his  memory,  and  to  look  for  the  last 
time  at  that  noble  form.  It  was  one  of  those  beau- 
tiful days  of  the  New  England  autumn,  when  the 
sun  is  slightly  veiled,  and  a delicate  haze  hangs 
over  the  sea,  shining  with  a tender  silvery  light. 
There  is  a sense  of  infinite  rest  and  peace  on  such 
a day  which  seems  to  shut  out  the  noise  of  the 
busy  world  and  breathe  the  spirit  of  unbroken 
calm.  As  the  crowds  poured  in  through  the  gates 
of  the  farm,  they  saw  before  them  on  the  lawn, 
resting  upon  a low  mound  of  flowers,  the  majestic 
form,  as  impressive  in  the  repose  of  death  as  it 


846 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


had  been  in  the  fullness  of  life  and  strength. 
There  was  a wonderful  fitness  in  it  all.  The 
vault  of  heaven  and  the  spacious  earth  seemed  in 
their  large  simplicity  the  true  place  for  such  a man 
to  lie  in  state.  There  was  a brief  and  simple  ser- 
vice at  the  house,  and  then  the  body  was  borne  on 
the  shoulders  of  Marshfield  farmers,  and  laid  in 
the  little  graveyard  which  already  held  the  wife 
and  children  who  had  gone  before,  and  where 
could  be  heard  the  eternal  murmur  of  the  sea. 

In  May,  1852,  Mr.  Webster  said  to  Professor  Sil- 
liman  : “I  have  given  my  life  to  law  and  politics. 
Law  is  uncertain  and  politics  are  utterly  vain.” 
It  is  a sad  commentary  for  such  a man  to  have 
made  on  such  a career,  but  it  fitly  represents  Mr. 
Webster’s  feelings  as  the  end  of  life  approached. 
His  last  years  were  not  his  most  fortunate,  and  still 
less  his  best  years.  Domestic  sorrows  had  been 
the  prelude  to  a change  of  policy,  which  had 
aroused  a bitter  opposition,  and  to  the  pangs  of 
disappointed  ambition.  A sense  of  mistake  and 
failure  hung  heavily  upon  his  spirits,  and  the  cry 
of  “vanity,  vanity,  all  is  vanity,”  came  readily  to 
his  lips.  There  is  an  infinite  pathos  in  those 
melancholy  words  which  have  just  been  quoted. 
The  sun  of  life,  which  had  shone  so  splendidly  at 
its  meridian,  was  setting  amid  clouds.  The  dark- 
ness which  overspread  him  came  from  the  action 
of  the  7th  of  March,  and  the  conflict  which  it  had 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


347 


caused.  If  there  were  failure  and  mistake  they 
were  there.  The  presidency  could  add  nothing,  its 
loss  could  take  away  nothing  from  the  fame  of 
Daniel  Webster.  He  longed  for  it  eagerly;  he 
had  sacrificed  much  to  his  desire  for  it ; his  disap- 
pointment was  keen  and  bitter  at  not  receiving 
what  seemed  to  him  the  fit  crown  of  his  great 
public  career.  But  this  grief  was  purely  personal, 
and  will  not  be  shared  by  posterity,  who  feel  only 
the  errors  of  those  last  years  coining  after  so  much 
glory,  and  who  care  very  little  for  the  defeat  of 
the  ambition  which  went  with  them. 

Those  last  two  years  awakened  such  fierce  dis- 
putes, and  had  such  an  absorbing  interest,  that 
they  have  tended  to  overshadow  the  half  century 
of  distinction  and  achievement  which  preceded 
them.  Failure  and  disappointment  on  the  part 
of  such  a man  as  Webster  seem  so  great,  that 
they  too  easily  dwarf  everything  else,  and  hide 
from  us  a just  and  well  proportioned  view  of  the 
whole  career.  Mr.  Webster's  success  had,  in 
truth,  been  brilliant,  hardly  equalled  in  measure 
or  duration  by  that  of  any  other  eminent  man  in 
our  history.  For  thirty  years  he  had  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  bar  and  of  the  Senate,  the  first  lawyer 
and  the  first  statesman  of  the  United  States. 
This  is  a long  tenure  of  power  for  one  man  in  two 
distinct  departments.  It  would  be  remarkable 
anywhere.  It  is  especially  so  in  a democracy. 
This  great  success  Mr.  Webster  owed  solely  to  his 


848 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


intellectual  power  supplemented  by  great  physical 
gifts.  No  man  ever  was  born  into  the  world  bet- 
ter formed  by  nature  for  the  career  of  an  orator 
and  statesman.  lie  had  everything  to  compel  the 
admiration  and  submission  of  his  fellow-men  : — ' 

“ The  front  of  Jove  himself ; 

An  eye  like  Mars  to  threaten  and  command; 

A station  like  the  herald  Mercury 
New-lighted  on  a heaven-kissing  hill; 

A combination  and  a form  indeed, 

Where  everv  god  did  seem  to  set  his  seal, 

To  give  the  world  assurance  of  a man.” 

Hamlet’s  words  are  a perfect  picture  of  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s outer  man,  and  we  have  but  to  add  to  the 
description  a voice  of  singular  beauty  and  power 
with  the  tone  and  compass  of  an  organ.  The  look 
of  his  face  and  the  sound  of  his  voice  were  in 
themselves  as  eloquent  as  anything  Mr.  Webster 
ever  uttered. 

But  the  imposing  presence  was  only  the  out- 
ward sign  of  the  man.  Within  was  a massive  and 
powerful  intellect,  not  creative  or  ingenious,  but 
with  a wonderful  vigor  of  grasp,  capacious,  pene- 
trating, far-reaching.  Mr.  Webster’s  strongest 
and  most  characteristic  mental  qualities  were 
weight  and  force.  He  was  peculiarly  fitted  to 
deal  with  large  subjects  in  a large  Avay.  He  was 
by  temperament  extremely  conservative.  There 
was  nothing  of  the  reformer  or  the  zealot  about 
him.  He  could  maintain  or  construct  where  other 
men  had  built ; he  could  not  lay  new  foundations 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


349 


or  invent.  We  see  this  curiously  exemplified  in 
his  feeling  toward  Hamilton  and  Madison.  He 
admired  them  both,  and  to  the  former  he  paid  a 
compliment  which  has  become  a familiar  quota- 
tion. But  Hamilton’s  bold,  aggressive  genius,  his 
audacity,  fertility,  and  resource,  did  not  appeal  to 
Mr.  Webster  as  did  the  prudence,  the  constructive 
wisdom,  and  the  safe  conservatism  of  the  gentle 
Madison,  whom  he  never  wearied  of  praising. 
The  same  description  may  be  given  of  his  imagi- 
nation, which  was  warm,  vigorous,  and  keen,  but 
not  poetic.  He  used  it  well,  it  never  led  him 
astray,  and  was  the  secret  of  his  most  conspicuous 
oratorical  triumphs. 

He  had  great  natural  pride  and  a strong  sense 
of  personal  dignity,  which  made  him  always  im- 
pressive, but  apparently  cold,  and  sometimes  sol- 
emn in  public.  In  his  later  years  this  solemnity 
degenerated  occasionally  into  pomposity,  to  which 
it  is  always  perilously  near.  At  no  time  in  his 
life  was  he  quick  or  excitable.  He  was  indolent 
and  dreamy,  working  always  under  pressure,  and 
then  at  a high  rate  of  speed.  This  indolence  in- 
creased as  he  grew  older ; he  would  then  postpone 
longer  and  labor  more  intensely  to  make  up  the 
lost  time  than  in  his  earlier  days.  When  he  was 
quiescent,  he  seemed  stern,  cold,  and  latterly 
rather  heavy,  and  some  outer  incentive  was  needed 
to  rouse  his  intellect  or  touch  his  heart.  Once 
stirred,  he  blazed  forth,  and,  when  fairly  engaged, 


350 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


with  his  intellect  in  full  play,  he  was  as  grand  and 
effective  in  his  eloquence  as  it  is  given  to  human 
nature  to  be.  In  the  less  exciting  occupations  of 
public  life,  as,  for  instance,  in  foreign  negotiations, 
lie  showed  the  same  grip  upon  his  subject,  the 
same  capacity  and  judgment  as  in  his  speeches, 
and  a mingling  of  tact  and  dignity  which  pi’oved 
the  greatest  fitness  for  the  conduct  of  the  gravest 
public  affairs.  As  a statesman  Mr.  Webster  was 
not  an  “ opportunist,”  as  it  is  the  fashion  to  call 
those  who  live  politically  from  day  to  day,  deal- 
ing with  each  question  as  it  arises,  and  exhibiting 
often  the  greatest  skill  and  talent.  Still  less  was 
he  a statesman  of  the  type  of  Charles  Fox,  who 
preached  to  the  deaf  ears  of  one  generation  great 
principles  which  became  accepted  truisms  in  the 
next.  Mr.  Webster  stands  between  the  two 
classes.  He  viewed  the  present  with  a strong  per- 
ception of  the  future,  and  shaped  his  policy  not 
merely  for  the  daily  exigency,  but  with  a keen  eye 
to  subsequent  effects.  At  the  same  time  lie  never 
put  forward  and  defended  single-handed  a great 
principle  or  idea  which,  neglected  then,  was  grad- 
ually to  win  its  way  and  reign  supreme  among  a 
succeeding  generation. 

His  speeches  have  a heat  and  glow  which  we 
can  still  feel,  and  a depth  and  reality  of  thought 
which  have  secured  them  a place  in  literature. 
He  had  not  a fiery  nature,  although  there  is  often 
so  much  warmth  in  what  he  said.  He  was  neither 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


351 


high  tempered  nor  quick  to  anger,  hut  lie  could  be 
fierce,  and,  when  adulation  had  warped  him  in 
those  later  years,  he  was  capable  of  striking  ugly 
blows  which  sometimes  wounded  friends  as  well 
as  enemies. 

There  remains  one  marked  quality  to  be  noticed 
in  Mr.  Webster,  which  was  of  immense  negative 
service  to  him.  This  was  his  sense  of  humor. 
Mr.  Nichol,  in  his  recent  history  of  American  lit- 
erature, speaks  of  Mr.  Webster  as  deficient  in  this 
respect.  Either  the  critic  himself  is  deficient  in 
humor  or  he  has  studied  only  Webster’s  collected 
works,  which  give  no  indication  of  the  real  humor 
in  the  man.  That  Mr.  Webster  was  not  a humor- 
ist is  unquestionably  true,  and  although  he  used 
a sarcasm  which  made  his  opponents  seem  absurd 
and  even  ridiculous  at  times,  and  in  his  more  un- 
studied efforts  would  provoke  mirth  by  some 
happy  and  playful  allusion,  some  felicitous  quota- 
tion or  ingenious  antithesis,  he  was  too  statel3r  in 
every  essential  respect  ever  to  seek  to  make  mere 
fun  or  to  excite  the  laughter  of  his  hearers  by  de- 
liberate exertions  and  with  malice  aforethought. 
He  had,  nevertheless,  a real  and  genuine  sense  of 
humor.  We  can  see  it  in  his  letters,  and  it  comes 
out  in  a thousand  ways  in  the  details  and  incidents 
of  his  private  life.  When  he  had  thrown  aside  the 
cares  of  professional  or  public  business,  he  revelled 
in  hearty,  boisterous  fun,  and  he  had  that  sanest 
of  qualities,  an  honest,  boyish  love  of  pure  non- 


352 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


sense.  He  delighted  in  a good  story  and  dearly 
loved  a joke,  although  no  jester  himself.  This 
sense  of  humor  and  appreciation  of  the  ridiculous, 
although  they  give  no  color  to  his  published 
works,  where,  indeed,  they  would  have  been  out 
of  place,  improved  his  judgment,  smoothed  his 
path  through  the  world,  and  saved  him  from  those 
blunders  in  taste  and  those  follies  in  action  which 
are  ever  the  pitfalls  for  men  with  the  fervid,  ora- 
torical temperament. 

This  sense  of  humor  gave,  also,  a great  charm 
to  his  conversation  and  to  all  social  intercourse 
with  him.  He  was  a good,  but  never,  so  far 
as  can  be  judged  from  tradition,  an  overbearing 
talker.  He  never  appears  to  have  crushed  opposi- 
tion in  conversation,  nor  to  have  indulged  in  mon- 
ologue, which  is  so  apt  to  be  the  foible  of  famous 
and  successful  men  who  have  a solemn  sense  of 
their  own  dignity  and  importance.  What  Lord 
Melbourne  said  of  the  great  Whig  historian,  “ that 
he  wished  he  was  as  sure  of  anything  as  Tom  Ma- 
caulay w'as  of  everything,”  could  not  be  applied 
to  Mr.  Webster.  He  owed  his  freedom  from  such 
a weakness  partly,  no  doubt,  to  his  natural  indo- 
lence, but  still  more  to  the  fact  that  he  was  not 
only  no  pedant,  but  not  even  a very  learned  man. 
He  knew  no  Greek,  but  was  familiar  with  Latin. 
His  quotations  and  allusions  were  chiefly  drawn 
from  Shakespeare,  Milton,  Homer,  and  the  Bible, 
where  he  found  what  most  appealed  to  him  — • 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


353 


simplicity  and  grandeur  of  thought  and  diction. 
At  the  same  time,  he  was  a great  reader,  and  pos- 
sessed wide  information  on  a vast  variety  of  sub- 
jects, which  a clear  and  retentive  memory  put 
always  at  his  command.  The  result  of  all  this 
was  that  he  was  a most  charming  and  entertain- 
ing companion. 

These  attractions  were  heightened  by  his  large 
nature  and  strong  animal  spirits.  He  loved  out- 
door life.  He  was  a keen  sportsman  and  skilful 
fisherman.  In  all  these  ways  he  was  healthy  and 
manly,  without  any  tinge  of  the  mere  student 
or  public  official.  He  loved  everything  that  was 
large.  His  soul  expanded  in  the  free  air  and 
beneath  the  blue  sky.  All  natural  scenery  ap- 
pealed to  him,  — Niagara,  the  mountains,  the  roll- 
ing prairie,  the  great  rivers, — but  he  found  most 
contentment  beside  the  limitless  sea,  amid  brown 
marshes  and  sand-dunes,  where  the  sense  of  infi- 
nite space  is  strongest.  It  was  the  same  in  regard 
to  animals.  He  cared  but  little  for  horses  or 
dogs,  but  he  rejoiced  in  great  herds  of  cattle,  and 
especially  in  line  oxen,  the  embodiment  of  slow 
and  massive  strength.  In  England  the  things 
which  chiefly  appealed  to  him  were  the  Tower 
of  London,  Westminster  Abbey,  Smithfield  cattle 
market,  and  English  agriculture.  So  it  was  al- 
ways and  everywhere.  He  loved  mountains  and 
great  trees,  wide  horizons,  the  ocean,  the  western 
plains,  and  the  giant  monuments  of  literature  and 
23 


354 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


art.  He  rejoiced  in  his  strength  and  the  over- 
flowing animal  vigor  that  was  in  him.  He  was  so 
big  and  so  strong,  so  large  in  every  way,  that 
people  sank  into  repose  in  his  presence,  and  felt 
rest  and  confidence  in  the  mere  fact  of  his  exist- 
ence. He  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  institution, 
and  when  he  died  men  paused  with  a sense  of 
helplessness,  and  wondered  how  the  country  would 
get  on  without  him.  To  have  filled  so  large  a 
space  in  a country  so  vast,  and  in  a great,  hurry- 
ing, and  pushing  democracy,  implies  a personality 
of  a most  uncommon  kind. 

He  was,  too,  something  more  than  a charming 
companion  in  private  life.  He  was  generous,  lib- 
eral, hospitable,  and  deeply  affectionate.  He  was 
adored  in  his  home,  and  deeply  loved  his  children, 
who  were  torn  from  him,  one  after  another.  His 
sorrow,  like  his  joy,  was  intense  and  full  of  force. 
He  had  many  devoted  friends,  and  a still  greater 
body  of  unhesitating  followers.  To  the  former 
he  showed,  through  nearly  all  his  life,  the  warm 
affection  which  was  natural  to  him.  It  was  not 
until  adulation  and  flattery  had  deeply  injured 
him,  and  the  frustrated  ambition  for  the  presi- 
dency had  poisoned  both  heart  and  mind,  that  he 
became  dictatorial  and  overbearing.  Not  till  then 
did  he  quarrel  with  those  who  had  served  and  fol- 
lowed him,  as  when  he  slighted  Mr.  Lawrence  for 
expressing  independent  opinions,  and  refused  to 
do  justice  to  the  memory  of  Story  because  it 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


355 


might  impair  his  own  glories.  They  do  not  pre- 
sent a pleasant  picture,  these  quarrels  with  friends, 
but  they  were  part  of  the  deterioration  of  the  last 
years,  and  they  furnish  in  a certain  way  the  key 
to  his  failure  to  attain  the  presidency.  The  coun- 
try was  proud  of  Mr.  Webster  ; proud  of  his  intel- 
lect, his  eloquence,  his  fame.  He  was  the  idol  of  the 
capitalists,  the  merchants,  the  lawyers,  the  clergy, 
the  educated  men  of  all  classes  in  the  East.  The 
politicians  dreaded  and  feared  him  because  he  was 
so  great,  and  so  little  in  sympathy  with  them,  but 
his  real  weakness  was  with  the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple. He  was  not  popular  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word.  For  years  the  Whig  party  and  Henry 
Clay  were  almost  synonymous  terms,  but  this 
could  never  be  said  of  Mr.  Webster.  His  follow- 
ing was  strong  in  quality,  but  weak  numerically. 
Clay  touched  the  popular  heart.  Webster  never 
did.  The  people  were  proud  of  him,  wondered  at 
him,  were  awed  by  him,  but  they  did  not  love 
him,  and  that  was  the  reason  he  was  never  Presi- 
dent, for  he  was  too  great  to  succeed  to  the  high 
office,  as  many  men  have,  by  happy  or  unhappy 
accident.  There  was  also  another  feeling  which 
is  suggested  by  the  differences  with  some  of  his 
closest  friends.  There  was  a lurking  distrust  of 
Mr.  Webster’s  sincerity.  We  can  see  it  plainly  in 
the  correspondence  of  the  Western  Whigs,  who 
were  not,  perhaps,  wholly  impartial.  But  it  ex- 
isted, nevertheless.  There  was  a vague,  ill-defined 


356 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


feeling  of  doubt  in  the  public  mind  ; a suspicion 
that  the  spirit  of  the  advocate  was  the  ruling  spirit 
in  Mr.  Webster,  and  that  he  did  not  believe  with 
absolute  and  fervent  faith  in  one  side  of  any  ques- 
tion. There  was  just  enough  correctness,  just  a 
sufficient  grain  of  truth  in  this  idea,  when  united 
with  the  coldness  and  dignity  of  his  manner  and 
with  his  greatness  itself,  to  render  impossible  that 
popularity  which,  to  be  real  and  lasting  in  a de- 
mocracy, must  come  from  the  heart  and  not  from 
the  head  of  the  people,  which  must  be  instinctive 
and  emotional,  and  not  the  offspring  of  reason. 

There  is  no  occasion  to  discuss,  or  hold  up  to 
reprobation,  Mr.  Webster’s  failings.  He  was  a 
splendid  animal  as  well  as  a great  man,  and  he 
had  strong  passions  and  appetites,  which  he  in- 
dulged at  times  to  the  detriment  of  his  health  and 
reputation.  These  errors  may  be  mostly  fitly  con- 
signed to  silence.  But  there  was  one  failing  which 
cannot  be  passed  over  in  this  way.  This  was  in 
regard  to  money.  His  indifference  to  debt  was 
perceptible  in  his  youth,  and  for  many  years 
showed  no  sign  of  growth.  But  in  his  later  years 
it  increased  with  terrible  rapidity.  He  earned 
twenty  thousand  a year  when  he  first  came  to 
Boston, — a very  great  income  for  those  days. 
His  public  career  interfered,  of  course,  with  his 
law  practice,  but  there  never  was  a period  when 
he  could  not,  with  reasonable  economy,  have  laid 
up  something  at  the  end  of  every  year,  and  grad 


TEE  LAST  YEARS. 


357 


ually  amassed  a fox-tune.  But  he  not  only  never 
saved,  he  lived  habitually  beyond  his  means.  He 
did  not  become  poor  by  his  devotion  to  the  public 
service,  but  by  his  own  extravagance.  He  loved 
to  spend  money  and  to  live  well.  He  had  a fine 
librai-y  and  handsome  plate;  he  bought  fancy 
cattle ; he  kept  open  house,  and  indulged  in  that 
most  expensive  of  all  luxuries,  “ gentleman-farm- 
ing.” He  never  stinted  himself  in  any  way,  and 
he  gave  away  money  with  reckless  generosity  and 
heedless  profusion,  often  not  stopping  to  inquire 
who  the  recipient  of  his  bounty  might  be.  The 
result  was  debt ; then  subscriptions  among  his 
fx-iends  to  pay  his  debts ; then  a fresh  start  and 
more  debts,  and  moi'e  subscriptions  and  funds  for 
his  benefit,  and  gifts  of  moixey  for  his  table,  and 
checks  or  notes  for  several  thousand  dollai’s  in 
token  of  admiration  of  the  7th  of  March  speech.1 

1 The  story  of  the  gift  of  ten  thousand  dollars  in  token  of  ad- 
miration of  the  7th  of  March  speech,  referred  to  by  Dr.  Von 
Holst  (Const.  Hist,  of  the  United  States)  may  be  found  in  a vol- 
ume entitled,  In  Memoriam,  B.  Ogle  Tayloe,  p.  109,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows : “My  opulent  and  munificent  friend  and  neighbor  Mr.  Wil- 
liam W.  Corcoran,”  says  Mr.  Tayloe,  “ after  the  perusal  of  Web- 
ster’s celebrated  March  speech  in  defence  of  the  Constitution  and 
of  Southern  rights,  inclosed  to  Mrs.  Webster  her  husband’s  note 
for  ten  thousand  dollars  given  him  for  a loan  to  that  amount. 
Mr.  Webster  met  Mr.  Corcoran  the  same  evening,  at  the  Presi- 
dent’s, and  thanked  him  for  the  ‘ princely  favor.’  Next  day  he 
addressed  to  Mr.  Corcoran  a letter  of  thanks  which  I read  at  Mr. 
Corcoran’s  request.”  This  version  is  substantially  correct.  The 
morning  of  March  8 Mr.  Corcoran  inclosed  with  a letter  of  con- 
gratulation some  notes  of  Mr.  Webster’s  amounting  to  some  six 


358 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


This  was,  of  course,  utterly  wrong  and  demoral- 
izing, but  Mr.  Webster  came,  after  a time,  to  look 
upon  such  transactions  as  natural  and  proper.  In 
the  Ingersoll  debate,  Mr.  Yancey  accused  him  of 
being  in  the  pay  of  the  New  England  manufactur- 
ers, and  his  biographer  has  replied  to  the  charge 
at  length.  That  Mr.  Webster  was  in  the  pay  of 
the  manufacturers  in  the  sense  that  they  hired 
him,  and  bade  him  do  certain  things,  is  absurd. 
That  he  was  maintained  and  supported  in  a large 
degree  by  New  England  manufacturers  and  capi- 
talists cannot  be  questioned  ; but  his  attitude  to- 
ward them  was  not  that  of  servant  and  dependent. 


thousand  dollars.  Reflecting  that  this  was  not  a very  solid  trib- 
ute, he  opened  his  letter  and  put  in  a check  for  a thousand  dol- 
lars, and  sent  the  notes  and  the  check  to  Mr.  Webster,  who  wrote 
him  a letter  expressing  his  gratitude,  which  Mr.  Tayloe  doubtless 
saw,  and  which  is  still  in  existence.  I give  the  facts  in  this  way 
because  Mr.  George  T.  Curtis,  in  a newspaper  interview,  referring 
to  an  article  of  mine  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly , said,  “ With  regard 
to  the  story  of  the  ten  thousand  dollar  check,  which  story  Mr. 
Lodge  gives  us  to  understand  he  found  in  the  pages  of  that  very 
credulous  writer  Dr.  Von  Holst,  although  I have  not  looked  into 
his  volumes  to  see  whether  he  makes  the  charge,  I have  only  to 
say  that  I never  heard  of  such  an  occurrence  before,  and  that  it 
would  require  the  oath  of  a very  credible  witness  to  the  fact  to 
make  me  believe  it.”  I may  add  that  I have  taken  the  trouble 
not  only  to  look  into  Dr.  Von  Holst’s  volumes  but  to  examine  the 
whole  matter  thoroughly.  The  proof  is  absolute  and  indeed  it  is 
pot  necessary  to  go  beyond  Mr.  Webster’s  own  letter  of  acknowl- 
edgment in  search  of  evidence,  were  there  the  slightest  reason  to 
doubt  the  substantial  correctness  of  Mr.  Tayloe’s  statement.  The 
point  is  a small  one,  but  a statement  of  fact,  if  questioned,  ought 
always  to  be  sustained  or  withdrawn. 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


859 


He  seems  to  have  regarded  the  merchants  and 
bankers  of  State  Street  very  much  as  a feudal 
baron  regarded  his  peasantry.  It  was  their  privi- 
lege and  duty  to  support  him,  and  he  repaid  them 
with  an  occasional  magnificent  compliment.  The 
result  was  that  he  lived  in  debt  and  died  insolvent, 
and  this  was  not  the  position  which  such  a man  as 
Daniel  Webster  should  have  occupied. 

He  showed  the  same  indifference  to  the  source 
of  supplies  of  money  in  other  ways.  He  took  a 
fee  from  Wheelock,  and  then  deserted  him.  He 
came  down  to  Salem  to  prosecute  a murderer,  and 
the  opposing  counsel  objected  that  he  was  brought 
there  to  hurry  the  jury  beyond  the  law  and  the 
evidence,  and  it  was  even  murmured  audibly  in 
the  court-room  that  he  had  a fee  from  the  rela- 
tives of  the  murdered  man  in  his  pocket.  A fee 
of  that  sort  he  certainly  received  either  then  or 
afterwards.  Every  ugly  public  attack  that  was 
made  upon  him  related  to  money,  and  it  is  pain- 
ful that  the  biographer  of  such  a man  as  Webster 
should  be  compelled  to  give  many  pages  to  show 
that  his  hero  was  not  in  the  pay  of  manufactur- 
ers, and  did  not  receive  a bribe  in  carrying  out  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Guadaloupe-Hidalgo. 
The  refutation  may  be  perfectly  successful,  but 
there  ought  to  have  been  no  need  of  it.  The  rep- 
utation of  a man  like  Mr.  Webster  in  money  mat- 
ters should  have  been  so  far  above  suspicion  that 
no  one  would  have  dreamed  of  attacking  it.  Debts 


360 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


and  subscriptions  bred  the  idea  that  there  might 
be  worse  behind,  and  although  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  such  was  the  case,  these  things  are 
of  themselves  deplorable  enough. 

When  Mr.  Webster  failed  it  was  a moral  fail- 
ure. His  moral  character  was  not  equal  to  his 
intellectual  force.  All  the  errors  he  ever  com- 
mitted, whether  in  public  or  in  private  life,  in 
political  action  or  in  regard  to  money  obligations, 
came  from  moral  weakness.  He  was  deficient  in 
that  intensity  of  conviction  which  carries  men  be- 
yond and  above  all  triumphs  of  statesmanship,  and 
makes  them  the  embodiment  of  the  great  moral 
forces  which  move  the  world.  If  Mr.  Webster’s 
moral  power  had  equalled  his  intellectual  great- 
ness, he  would  have  had  no  rival  in  our  history. 
But  this  combination  and  balance  are  so  rare  that 
they  are  hardly  to  be  found  in  perfection  among 
the  sons  of  men.  The  very  fact  of  his  greatness 
made  bis  failings  all  the  more  dangerous  and  un- 
fortunate. To  be  blinded  by  the  splendor  of  his 
fame  and  the  lustre  of  his  achievements  and  prate 
about  the  sin  of  belittling  a great  man  is  the  falsest 
philosophy  and  the  meanest  cant.  The  only  thing 
worth  having,  in  history  as  in  life,  is  truth  ; and 
we  do  wrong  to  our  past,  to  ourselves,  and  to  our 
posterity  if  we  do  not  strive  to  render  simple 
justice  always.  We  can  forgive  the  errors  and 
sorrow  for  the  faults  of  our  great  ones  gone ; we 
cannot  afford  to  hide  or  forget  their  shortcomings. 


THE  LAST  YEARS. 


361 


But  after  all  has  been  said,  the  question  of  most 
interest  is,  what  Mr.  Webster  represented,  what  he 
effected,  and  what  he  means  in  our  history.  The 
answer  is  simple.  He  stands  to-day  as  the  pre- 
eminent champion  and  exponent  of  nationality. 
He  said  once,  “ there  are  no  Alleghanies  in  my 
politics,”  and  he  spoke  the  exact  truth.  Mr. 
Webster  was  thoroughly  national.  There  is  no 
taint  of  sectionalism  or  narrow  local  prejudice 
about  him.  He  towers  up  as  an  American,  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  word.  He  did  not  invent  the  Union,  or  dis- 
cover the  doctrine  of  nationality.  But  he  found 
the  great  fact  and  the  great  principle  ready  to  his 
hand,  and  he  lifted  them  up,  and  preached  the 
gospel  of  nationality  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land.  In  his  fidelity  to  this  cause 
he  never  wavered  nor  faltered.  From  the  first 
burst  of  boyish  oratory  to  the  sleepless  nights  at 
Marshfield,  when,  waiting  for  death,  he  looked 
through  the  window  at  the  light  which  showed 
him  the  national  flag  fluttering  from  its  staff,  his 
first  thought  was  of  a united  country.  To  his 
large  nature  the  Union  appealed  powerfully  by  the 
mere  sense  of  magnitude  which  it  conveyed.  The 
vision  of  future  empire,  the  dream  of  the  destiny 
of  an  unbroken  union  touched  and  kindled  his  im- 
agination. He  could  hardly  speak  in  public  with- 
out an  allusion  to  the  grandeur  of  American  na- 
tionality, and  a fervent  appeal  to  keep  it  sacred 


362 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


and  intact.  For  fifty  years,  with  reiteration  ever 
more  frequent,  sometimes  with  rich  elaboration, 
sometimes  with  brief  and  simple  allusion,  he 
poured  this  message  into  the  ears  of  a listening 
people.  His  words  passed  into  text-hooks,  and  be- 
came the  first  declamations  of  school-boys.  They 
were  in  every  one’s  mouth.  They  sank  into  the 
hearts  of  the  people,  and  became  unconsciously  a 
part  of  their  life  and  daily  thoughts.  When  the 
hour  came,  it  was  love  for  the  Union  and  the 
sentiment  of  nationality  which  nerved  the  arm  of 
the  North,  and  sustained  her  courage.  That  love 
had  been  fostered,  and  that  sentiment  had  been 
strengthened  and  vivified  by  the  life  and  words  of 
Webster.  No  one  had  done  so  much,  or  had  so 
large  a share  in  this  momentous  task.  Here  lies 
the  debt  which  the  American  people  owe  to  Web- 
ster, and  here  is  his  meaning  and  importance  in 
his  own  time  and  to  us  to-day.  His  career,  his  in- 
tellect, and  bis  achievements  are  inseparably  con- 
nected with  the  maintenance  of  a great  empire, 
and  the  fortunes  of  a great  people.  So  long  as 
English  oratory  is  read  or  studied,  so  long  will  his 
speeches  stand  high  in  literature.  So  long  as  the 
Union  of  these  States  endures,  or  holds  a place  in 
history,  will  the  name  of  Daniel  Webster  be 
honored  and  remembered,  and  his  stately  elo- 
quence find  an  echo  in  the  hearts  of  his  country- 
men. 


INDEX. 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  succeeds  Lord  Pal- 
merston as  Secretary  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  252  ; oilers  forty-ninth  par- 
allel, in  accordance  with  Mr.  Web- 
ster’s suggestion,  266. 

Adams,  John,  in  Massachusetts  Con- 
vention, 111  ; letter  to  Webster  on 
Plymouth  oration,  123 ; eulogy  on, 
125  ; supposed  speech  of.  126. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  most  conspicu- 
ous man  in  New  England,  129  ; op- 
posed to  Greek  mission,  135  ; opin- 
ion of  Webster’s  speech  against  tar- 
iff of  1824,  136 ; elected  President, 
137,  149;  anxious  for  success  of 
Panama  mission,  140 ; message  on 
Georgia  and  Creek  Indians,  142; 
Webster’s  opposition  to,  145 ; bit- 
ter tone  toward  Webster  in  Ed- 
wards’s affair,  147 ; interview  with 
Webster,  148,  149 ; conciliates  Web- 
ster, 149 ; real  hostility  to  Web- 
ster, 150 ; defeated  for  presidency, 
151  ; comment  on  eulogy  on 
Adams  and  Jefferson,  153 ; com- 
pared with  Webster  as  an  ora- 
tor, 201 ; opinion  of  reply  to  Hayne, 
206 ; opinion  of  Mr.  Webster’s 
attitude  toward  the  South  in  1838, 
285. 

Ames,  Fisher,  compared  with  Webster 
as  an  orator,  201. 

Appleton,  Julia  Webster,  daughter  of 
Mr.  Webster,  death  of,  271. 

Ashburton,  Lord,  appointed  special 
commissioner,  251 ; arrives  in  Wash- 
ington, 253 ; negotiation  with  Mr. 
Webster,  255  ff. ; attacked  by  Lord 
Palmerston,  259. 

Ashmun,  George,  defends  Mr.  Web- 
ster, 269. 

Atkinson,  Edward,  summary  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  tariff  speech  of  1824,  163- 
165. 

Bacourt,  M.  de,  French  Minister,  de- 


scription of  Harrison’s  reception  of 
diplomatic  corps,  245. 

Baltimore,  Whig  Convention  at,  338. 

Bank  of  the  United  States,  debate  on 
establishment,  and  defeat  of,  in 
1814-15,  62 ; established,  66 ; be- 
ginning of  attack  on,  208. 

Bartlett,  Ichabod,  counsel  for  State 
against  College,  79;  attack  on  Mr. 
Webster,  80. 

Bell,  Samuel,  remarks  to  Webster  be- 
fore reply  to  Hayne,  178. 

Bellamy,  Dr.,  early  opponent  of  Elea- 
zer  Wheelock,  75. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  account  of  Mr. 
Webster  in  1S33,  219,  220 ; error  in 
view  of  Webster,  221 ; fails  in  first 
attempt  to  carry  expunging  resolu- 
tion, 232  ; carries  second  expunging 
resolution,  234  ; attacks  Ashburton 
treaty,  257  ; supports  Taylor’s  policy 
in  1850,  312. 

Bocanegra,  M.  de,  Webster’s  corre- 
spondence with,  260. 

“ Boston  Memorial,”  275. 

Bosworth,  Mi.,  junior  counsel  in 
Rhode  Island  case,  105. 

Brown,  Rev.  Francis,  elected  presi- 
dent of  Dartmouth  College,  78  ; re- 
fuses to  obey  new  board  of  trustees, 
79 ; writes  to  Webster  as  to  state  of 
public  opinion,  94. 

Buchanan,  James,  taunts  Mx.  Clay, 
251 ; attacks  Ashburton  treaty,  257. 

Bulwer,  Sir  Henry,  respect  for  Mr. 
Webster,  336. 

Burke,  Edmund,  Webster  compared 
with  as  an  orator,  199,  202,  203. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  speech  in  favor  of 
repealing  embargo,  53 ; sustains 
double  duties,  55,  157 ; asks  Web- 
ster’s assistance  to  establish  a bank, 
63 ; introduces  bill  to  compel  reve- 
nue to  be  collected  in  specie,  66; 
internal  improvement  bill  of,  68; 


364 


INDEX. 


visit  to  Webster,  who  regards  him  as 
his  choice  for  President,  130-145 ; 
misleads  Webster  as  to  Greek  mis- 
sion, 135 ; author  of  exposition  and 
protest,  171 ; presides  over  debate 
on  Foote’s  resolution,  172 ; com- 
pared with  Webster  as  an  orator, 
201 ; resigns  vice-presidency  and  re- 
turns as  Senator  to  support  nullifi- 
cation, 212  ; alarmed  at  Jackson’s 
attitude  and  at  Force  Bill,  214  ; con- 
sults Clay,  215  ; nullification  speech 
on  Force  Bill,  215  ; merits  of  speech, 
216;  supports  compromise,  219  ; al- 
liance with  Clay,  222  ; and  Webster, 
226 ; attitude  in  regard  to  France, 
230 ; change  on  bank  question,  236  ; 
accepts  secretaryship  of  state  to 
bring  about  annexation  of  Texas,  263; 
moves  that  anti-slavery  petitions  be 
not  received,  1836, 281  ; bill  to  con- 
trol United  States  mails,  282 ; tries 
to  stifle  petitions,  284 ; resolutions 
on  Enterprise  affair,  286 ; approves 
Webster’s  treatment  of  Creole  case, 
287  ; pronounces  anti-slavery  peti 
tion  of  New  Mexico  “ insolent,”  298  ; 
argument  as  to  Constitution  in  ter- 
ritories, 298 ; Webster’s  compli- 
ments to  on  7th  of  March,  326. 

California,  desires  admission  as  a state, 
299  ; slavery  possible  in,  319. 

Carlyle,  Thomas,  description  of  Web- 
ster, 194. 

Caroline,  affair  of  steamboat,  247. 

Cass,  Lewis,  attack  upon  Ashburton 
treaty  ; 259 ; Democratic  candidate 
for  presidency  and  defeated,  274. 

Chamberlain,  Mellen,  comparison  of 
Webster  with  other  orators,  203, 
note. 

Chatham,  Earl  of,  compared  with 
Webster  as  an  orator,  201. 

Choate,  Rufus,  compared  with  Web- 
ster as  an  orator,  202  ; resigns  sena- 
torsliip,  262 ; leads  Webster  dele- 
gates at  Baltimore,  338. 

Clay,  Henry,  makes  Mr.  Webster  chair- 
man of  Judiciary  Committee,  131 ; 
active  support  of  Greek  resolutions, 
134 ; author  of  American  system  and 
tariff  of  1824, 136,  163;  desires  Pan- 
ama mission,  140 ; Webster’s  op- 
position to,  145 ; candidate  for 
presidency  in  1832,  207  ; bill  for  re- 
duction of  tariff,  1831-32,  211 ; con- 
sults with  Calhoun,  215  ; introduces 
Compromise  bill,  215  ; carries  Com- 
promise bill,  218,  219  ; alliance  with 
Calhoun,  222  ; opinion  of  Webster’s 
course  in  1833,  222,  223 ; alliance 
with  Webster,  226 ; introduces  reso- 


lutions of  censure  on  Jackson,  228; 
attitude  in  regard  to  France,  230 ; 
declines  to  enter  Harrison’s  cabinet, 
240 ; attacks  President  Tyler,  250, 
251 ; movement  in  favor  of,  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, 258 ; nominated  for 
presidency  and  defeated,  262  ; move- 
ment to  nominate  in  1848, 273  ; reso- 
lutions as  to  slavery  in  the  District, 
284 ; plan  for  compromise  in  1850, 
300  ; introduces  Compromise  bill  in 
Senate,  301 ; policy  of  compromise, 
309,  310 ; consistent  supporter  of 
compromise  policy,  315  ; not  a can- 
didate for  presidency  in  1852,  337  ; 
popularity  of,  355. 

Clingman,  Thomas  L.,  advocates  slav- 
ery in  California,  320. 

Congregational  Church,  power  and 
politics  of,  in  New  Hampshire,  76. 

Congress,  leaders  in  thirteenth,  49 ; 
leaders  in  fourteenth,  64. 

Cooper,  James  Fenimore,  Webster’s 
speech  at  memorial  meeting,  195. 

Corcoran,  Wm.  W.,  gift  to  Mr.  Web- 
ster, 357,  note. 

Crawford,  William  H.,  attack  on  by 
Ninian  Edwards,  136,  146,  147  ; bids 
for  support  of  Webster  and  Federal- 
ists, 146 ; defended  by  Webster,  147  ; 
fails  to  get  support  of  Federalists, 
148. 

Creole,  case  of  the,  253,  255,  287. 

Crimes  Act,  138. 

Crittenden,  John  J.,  Morehead’s  letter 
to,  about  7tli  of  March  speech,  326. 

Cruising  Convention,  the,  255,  259. 

Cumberland  Road,  bill  for,  137. 

Curtis,  George  T.,  biography  of  Web- 
ster, 1 , note  ; opinion  of  reply  to  Cal- 
houn, 216  ; of  expunging  resolution, 
234  ; describes  New  York  movement 
for  Taylor  as  a blunder,  273  ; says 
majority  disapproved  7th  of  March 
speech,  303;  considers  Taylor’s  pol- 
icy in  1850  impracticable,  311  ; views 
as  to  danger  of  secession  in  1850, 
314. 

Cushing,  Caleb,  Minister  to  China, 
260  ; course  in  1838,  285. 

Dartmouth  College  case,  account  of, 
74-97. 

Davis,  Daniel,  30. 

Denison,  John  Evelyn,  friendship  and 
correspondence  with  Mr.  Webster, 
152. 

Dexter,  Samuel,  a leader  at  Boston 
bar,  30  ; practises  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, 36. 

Dickinson,  Daniel  S.,  attack  upon  Mr. 
Webster,  268. 


INDEX. 


365 


Disraeli,  Benjamin,  free  trade  a ques- 
tion of  expediency,  169. 

Douglas.  Stephen  A.,  offers  amend- 
ment to  Oregon  bill,  294. 

Dunham,  Josiah,  attacks  Webster  for 
deserting  Wlieelock,  77. 

Durfree,  American  citizen  killed  on 
Caroline,  247. 

Duvall,  Judge,  opposed  to  Dartmouth 
College,  S7  ; writes  dissenting  opin- 
ion, 98. 

Edwards,  Ninian,  charges  against  Mr. 
Crawford,  136,  146,  147 ; character 
of,  146,  147. 

Enterprise,  case  of  the,  2S6. 

Erskine,  Lord,  compared  with  Web- 
ster as  an  orator,  202. 

Everett,  Edward,  Webster  desires  ap- 
pointment of  as  Commissioner  to 
Greece,  135  ; Minister  to  England, 
252  ; refuses  Chinese  mission,  260. 

Farrar,  Timothy,  report  of  Dart- 
mouth College  case,  81,  S6. 

Federalists,  ruling  party  in  New 
Hampshire,  76  ; defeated  on  col- 
lege issue,  78 ; movement  of  to  get 
decision  for  college,  92-94;  posi- 
tion of  in  1823,  130,  131  ; hostility 
to  John  Quincy  Adams,  145,  146  ; 
attempted  alliance  with  Crawford, 
146-148 ; to  be  recognized  by  Adams, 
149 ; free-traders  in  New  England, 
155  ff. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  offers  Mr.  Webster 
secretaryship  of  state,  333  ; candi- 
date for  Whig  nomination,  33S ; 
urges  Mr.  Webster  to  stay  in  the 
cabinet,  344. 

Foote,  Henry  S.,  moves  to  refer  ad- 
mission of  California  to  a select 
committee,  301. 

Foote,  Samuel  A.,  resolution  regard- 
ing public  lands,  172. 

Force  Bill,  introduced,  214 ; debated, 
215,  216. 

Forsyth,  John,  attacks  Mr.  Adams’s 
message  on  Creek  Indians,  142  : an- 
swered by  Webster,  142, 143. 

Fox,  Charles  James,  “no  good  speech 
reads  well,”  189;  compared  with 
Webster  as  an  orator,  202 ; as  a 
statesman,  350. 

Fox,  Henry  S.,  British  minister  at 
Harrison’s  reception  of  diplomatic 
corps,  245 ; demands  release  of 
McLeod,  248. 

Free-Soil  party,  nominations  in  1S48 
do  not  obtain  Webster’s  support, 
274,  296 ; attitude  in  regard  to 
slavery  in  1850,  316  ; injured  by  7th 


of  March  speech,  324;  revival  and 
victory,  325. 

Fryeburg,  Maine,  Webster’s  school  at, 
26  ; oration  before  citizens  of,  27. 

Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  case  of,  99. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  opinion  of  Mr. 
Webster’s  attitude  toward  the  South 
in  1S38,  286 ; says  Mr.  Webster  in- 
serted passage  about  free  negroes 
and  Mr.  Hoar  after  delivery  of  7fch 
of  March  speech,  303 ; interview 
with  Mr.  Webster,  322. 

Girard  will  case,  101,  261. 

Goodrich,  Dr.  Chauncey  A.,  descrip- 
tion of  close  of  Mr.  Webster’s  ar- 
gument in  Dartmouth  case,  89,  90. 

Goodridge,  Major,  case  of,  198. 

Gore,  Christopher,  admits  Mr.  Web- 
ster as  a student  in  his  office,  28  ; 
character  of,  29  ; advises  Webster 
to  refuse  clerkship,  moves  his  ad- 
mission to  the  bar,  31. 

Greece,  revolution  in,  132. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  compared  with 
Webster  as  an  orator,  201 ; as  a finan- 
cier, 20S,  226,  228 ; in  regard  to  at- 
tack on  Adams,  274 ; Webster’s  opin- 
ion of,  and  feeling  to,  349. 

Hanover,  oration  before  citizens  of, 

20  22. 

Harrison,  William  Henry,  nominee  of 
Whigs  in  1836,  225 : nominated  by 
Whigs  again  in  1839  ; elected  Pres- 
ident, 240;  character  of  inaugural 
speech,  anecdote,  244 ; reception 
of  diplomatic  corps,  245 ; death  of, 
250. 

Hartford  Convention,  Mr.  Webster’s 
view  of,  58. 

Harvey,  Peter,  character  of  his  rem- 
iniscences, 95,  note. 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  first  attack  on 
New  England,  172  ; second  speech, 
173  ; Webster’s  reply  to,  174  ff.,  279 ; 
effect  of  reply  to,  206. 

Henry,  Patrick,  compared  with  Web- 
I ster  as  an  orator,  200. 

Hoar,  Samuel,  treatment  of  at  Charles- 
ton, 302. 

Holmes,  John,  counsel  for  State  at 
Washington,  poor  argument,  S4,  91. 

Hopkinson,  Joseph,  with  Mr.  Webster 
in  Dartmouth  case  at  Washington, 
good  argument  of,  S4. 

Hulsemann,  Mr.,  Austrian  Charge,  Mr. 
W ebster ’s  correspondence  with,  334 ; 
j leaves  the  country  in  anger,  335. 

Ingersoll,  C.  J.,  attack  on  Mr.  Web- 
ter,  267-270. 


366 


INDEX. 


Jackson,  Andrew, Webster’s  opposition 
to  as  candidate  for  presidency,  145  ; 
accession  to  the  presidency,  171  ; 
sweeping  removals,  172 ; begins  at- 
tack on  bank,  208  ; vetoes  bill  for 
renewal  of  bank  charter,  209 ; de- 
termined to  maintain  integrity  of 
Union,  212  ; issues  his  proclamation, 
213  ; message  asking  for  Force  Bill, 
cannot  hold  his  party,  supported  by 
Webster,  214;  threatens  to  hang 
Calhoun,  215;  not  sorry  for  com- 
promise, 219 ; alliance  with  Web- 
ster impossible,  221  ; removes  the 
deposits,  22G ; sends  “Protest”  to 
Senate,  228,  229  ; struggle  with  Sen- 
ate and  policy  toward  France,  230. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  intends  an  unlim- 
ited embargo,  45  ; eulogy  on,  125. 

Johnson,  Judge,  adverse  at  first  to 
Dartmouth  college,  87  ; converted 
to  support  of  college,  93. 

Kent,  James,  Chancellor,  brought 
over  to  support  of  college,  93. 

Kentucky,  leaders  in,  opposed  to  Web- 
ster, 224,  225. 

Kossuth,  arrival  and  reception  of  in 
United  States,  335. 

Laboucherk,  Mr.,  152. 

Lawrence,  Abbot,  treatment  of  by 
Mr.  Webster,  354. 

Leroy,  Caroline,  Miss,  second  wife  of 
Mr.  Webster,  205. 

Letcher,  Robert  P.,  opinion  of  Web- 
ster, 225. 

Liberty  party,  2G2,  287. 

Lieber,  Dr.  Francis,  opinion  of  Web- 
ster’s oratory,  187. 

Lincoln,  Levi,  elected  senator  from 
Massachusetts  and  declines,  144. 

Livingston,  Judge,  adverse  at  first  to 
Dartmouth  college,  87 ; converted 
to  support  of  college,  93. 

Lobos  Islands,  affair  of  the,  336. 

Lopez,  invasion  of  Cuba,  336. 

Madison,  James,  Federalists  refuse  to 
call  on,  GO  : vetoes  Bank  Bill,  64  ; 
Mr.  Webster’s  admiration  for,  349. 

Macgregor,  Mr.,  of  Glasgow, Webster’s 
letter  to,  266. 

Maine,  conduct  in  regard  to  north- 
eastern boundary,  248,  254,  256. 

Marshall,  John,  sympathy  for  Dart- 
mouth College,  87  ; his  political 
prejudices  aroused  by  Webster,  88  ; 
announces  that  decision  is  reserved, 
92 ; declines  to  hear  Pinkney,  95 ; 
his  decision,  96. 

Marshfield,  Mr.  Webster’s  first  visit 


to,  152 ; his  affection  for,  261 ; ac* 
cident  to  Mr.  Webster  at,  343  ; Mr. 
Webster  returns  to,  to  die,  344 ; Mr. 
Webster  buried  at,  345,  346. 

Mason,  Jeremiah,  character  and  abil- 
ity, 38  ; effect  upon,  and  friendship 
for  Webster,  39  ; plain  style  and  ef- 
fect with  juries,  40  ; thinks  Webster 
would  have  made  a good  actor,  42  ; 
allied  with  trustees  of  college,  76 ; 
advises  delay  in  removal  of  Whee- 
lock,  78 ; appears  for  college,  79 ; 
brief  in  college  case,  80 ; attaches 
but  little  importance  to  doctrine  of 
impairing  contracts,  81 ; unable  to 
go  to  Washington,  84 : Webster’s 
remarks  on  death  of,  127  ; supported 
by  Webster  for  attorney-generalship, 
148  ; and  for  senatorsliip,  150. 

Mason,  John  Y.,  advocates  slavery  in 
California,  320  ; Webster’s  compli- 
ment to  on  7th  of  March,  326- 

Massachusetts,  settlement  of,  1,  2 ; 
constitutional  convention  of  in  1820, 
110  ; Webster’s  defence  of,  185  ; con- 
duct in  regard  to  northeastern 
boundary,  248,  254  ; Whig  conven- 
tion of,  declares  against  Tyler,  258. 

McDuffie,  George,  Webster’s  reply  to, 
on  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  137,  173. 

McLane,  Louis,  instructions  of  Van 
Buren  to,  as  minister  to  England, 
210. 

McLeod,  Alexander,  boasts  of  killing 
Durfree,  247  ; arrested  in  New  York, 
247 ; habeas  corpus  refused,  249  ; 
proves  an  alibi  and  is  acquitted,  252. 

Melbourne,  Lord,  ministry  of,  beaten, 
252. 

Mexico,  war  with,  declared,  270,  290. 

Mills,  E.  H.,  failing  health,  leaves 
Senate,  144. 

Monroe,  James,  visit  to  the  North 
urged  by  Webster,  129. 

New  Hampshire,  settlement  of,  2 ; soil, 
etc.,  3 ; people  of,  4 ; bar  of.  35,  36  ; 
Webster  refuses  to  have  his  name 
brought  forward  by,  in  1844,  262. 

New  Mexico,  petitions  against  slavery, 
298  ; quarrel  with  Texas,  299 ; slav- 
ery possible  in,  319. 

New  Orleans,  destruction  of  Spanish 
consulate  at,  330. 

New  York,  attitude  of,  in  McLeod  af- 
fair, 248,  249. 

Niagara,  Webster’s  visit  to,  and  ac- 
count of,  152. 

Niblo’s  Garden,  Mr.  Webster’s  speech 
at,  238. 

Nicaragua,  British  protectorate  oij 
336. 


INDEX.  367 


Niles,  Nathaniel,  Judge,  pupil  of  Bel- 
lamy and  opponent  of  John  Wliee- 
lock,  75. 

Noyes,  Parker,  early  assistance  to 
Webster,  107. 

Nullification,  Webster’s  discussion  and 
history  of,  174  ff. 

Ogden  vs . Saunders,  case  of,  100. 

Oregon,  boundary  of,  Webster’s  effort 
to  settle,  260-2(34;  Webster’s  opin- 
ion in  regard  to  boundary  of,  265  ; 
claims  of  British  and  of  Democracy, 
265  ; territorial  organization  of,  294. 

Otis,  Harrison  Gray,  a leader  at  Bos- 
ton bar,  30. 

Palmerston,  Lord,  hostile  to  the 
United  States,  248 ; assails  Ashbur- 
ton treaty  and  Lord  Ashburton,  259. 

Panama  Congress,  debate  on  mission 
to,  140,  279. 

Parker,  Isaac,  Chief  Justice,  in  Massa- 
chusetts convention,  111. 

Parsons,  Theophilus,  Chief  Justice  of 
Massachusetts,  30  ; practice  in  New 
Hampshire,  36 ; argument  as  to  vis- 
itatorial powers  at  Harvard  College, 
81. 

Parton,  James,  description  of  Webster 
at  public  dinner,  195. 

Peake,  Thomas,  “ Law  of  Evidence,” 
Webster’s  attack  on,  37. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  effect  of  his  obtain- 
ing office  in  1841,  252. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  unwavering  Fed- 
eralist, 50. 

Pinkney,  William,  member  of  four- 
teenth Congress,  64 ; counsel  of  State 
in  Dartmouth  case,  94,  95  ; anecdote 
of,  with  Webster,  95,  note. 

Plumer,  William,  leading  lawyer  in 
New  Hampshire  and  early  opponent 
of  Webster ; opinion  of  Webster, 
36  ; refutes  Mr.  Webster’s  attack  on 
“Peake,”  37  ; in  ill  health  and  un- 
able to  act  for  Wheelock,  76  ; elected 
Governor  and  attacks  trustees,  78. 

Plymouth,  oration  at,  117-124,  277. 

Polk,  James  K.,  elected  President; 
committed  to  annexation  policy,  263; 
principal  events  of  his  administra- 
tion connected  with  slavery,  264 ; 
declarations  as  to  Oregon,  265 ; ac- 
cepts Lord  Aberdeen’s  offer  of 
forty-ninth  parallel,  266 ; real  inten- 
tions as  to  Mexico  and  England,  267  ; 
refuses  information  as  to  secret  ser- 
vice fund,  269  ; brings  on  Mexican  ' 
war,  270,  290 ; policy  as  to  slavery 
in  territories,  297. 

Portugal,  treaty  with,  260. 


Prescott,  James,  J dge,  Webster’s  de- 
fence of,  197. 

Randolph,  John,  member  of  fourteenth 
Congress,  64 ; challenges  Webster, 
67 ; takes  part  in  debate  on  Greek 
resolution,  134. 

Rhode  Island,  case  of,  104,  105  ; troub- 
les in,  260. 

“ Rockingham  Memorial,”  48. 
“Rogers’  Rangers,”  5. 

Root,  Mr.,  of  Ohio,  resolution  against 
extension  of  slavery  in  1850,  314. 

Scott,  Winfield,  nominated  for  presi- 
dency, 338-343. 

Seaton,  Mrs.,  Webster  at  house  of,  244. 
Seward,  William  H , advises  Taylor 
as  to  policy  in  1850,  312. 

Sheridan,  R.  B.,  compared  with  Web- 
ster as  an  orator,  201,  202. 

Shirley,  John  M.,  history  of  Dart. 

mouth  College  causes,  74. 

Silliman,  Prof.  Benj.,  Mr.  Webster’s 
remark  to  on  his  own  career,  346. 
Smith,  Jeremiah,  Chief  Justice  of  New 
Hampshire,  36 ; allied  with  trustees 
of  the  college,  76 ; appears  for  col- 
lege, 79,  80 ; unable  to  go  to  Wash- 
ington, 84. 

Smith,  Sidney,  remark  on  Webster’s 
appearance,  134. 

Spanish  claims,  152. 

Sparks,  Jared,  obtains  appointment  of 
boundary  commissioners  by  Maine, 
254. 

“ Specie  Circular,”  debate  on,  233, 234. 
South  Carolina,  agitation  in  against 
the  tariff  in  1828,  171 ; ordinance  of 
nullification,  212 ; substantial  vic- 
tory of,  in  1833,  219. 

Stanley,  Mr.,  Earl  of  Derby,  152. 
Stevenson,  Andrew,  minister  to  Eng- 
land, unconciliatory,  248 ; retires, 
and  is  succeeded  by  Mr.  Everett,  252. 
Story,  Joseph,  chosen  trustee  of  Dart- 
mouth College  the  State,  79  ; ad- 
verse to  Dartmouth  College,  87  ; con- 
verted to  support  of  college,  93  ; 
writes  opinion  in  Dartmouth  case, 
96  ; opinion  of  Girard  will  case  ar- 
gument, 102  ; Webster’s  obligations 
to,  108  ; a member  of  Massachusetts 
convention,  111  ; supports  property 
qualification  for  the  Senate,  115; 
opinion  of  Webster’s  work  in  the  con- 
vention, 116, 117  ; Webster’s  remarks 
on  death  of,  127  ; assists  Webster  in 
preparing  Crimes  Act,  138  ; and  Ju- 
diciary Bill,  139  ; description  of  Mr. 
Webster  after  his  wife’s  death,  155 ; 
assists  Webster  in  Ashburton  nego- 


368 


INDEX. 


tiation,  256  ; treatment  of,  by  Web- 
ster, 354. 

Sullivan,  George,  leading  lawyer  in 
New  Hampshire,  36;  counsel  for 
Woodward  and  State  trustees,  able 
argument,  79. 

Sullivan,  James,  30. 

Taney,  Roger,  removes  the  deposits, 
226. 

Tayloe,  B.  Ogle,  anecdote  of  Mr.  Cor- 
coran’s gift  to  Webster,  357. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  tempting  candidate 
for  Whigs,  272  ; movement  for,  in 
New  York,  273  ; nominated  for  pres- 
idency, 273  ; elected  President,  274  ; 
elected  by  Southern  votes,  296  ; ad- 
vises admission  of  California,  301 ; 
attitude  and  policy  in  1850,  311, 
312  ; death,  333  ; agent  sent  to  Hun- 
gary by,  333. 

Tazewell,  L.  W.,  Mr.  Webster’s  reply 
to  on  Process  Bill,  155. 

Tehauntepec,  Isthmus  of,  right  of  way 
over,  336. 

Texas,  independence  of,  achieved, 
232  ; annexation  of,  263,  289  ; Mr. 
Webster’s  warning  against  annexa- 
tion, 288  ; admission  as  a State,  290  ; 
plan  to  divide,  294  ; troubles  with 
New  Mexico,  299. 

Thompson,  Thomas  W.,  Webster  a 
student  in  his  office,  27. 

Ticknor,  George,  account  of  Plymouth 
oration,  118,  119 ; impression  of 
Plymouth  oration,  120  ; description 
of  Webster  at  Plymouth,  122  ; ac- 
count of  Webster’s  appearance  in 
eulogy  on  Adams  and  Jefferson,  152, 
153. 

Todd,  Judge,  opposed  to  Dartmouth 
College,  87  ; absent  at  decision,  96. 

Tyler,  John,  succeeds  to  presidency  on 
death  of  Harrison  ; vetoes  Bank  Bill, 
250  ; quarrels  with  Whigs,  251 ; read 
out  of  party  by  Massachusetts  Whigs, 
258. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  instructions  to 
McLane,  210  ; confirmation  as  min- 
ister to  England,  opposed,  210  ; con- 
firmation of,  defeated,  211 ; elected 
President,  character  of  his  admin- 
istration, 236  ; defeated  for  a second 
term,  240  ; candidate  of  Free-Soil 
party  in  1848,  274, 296. 

Washington,  Bushrod,  Judge,  friendly 
to  college,  87  ; opinion  in  favor  of 
college,  96. 

Washington,  city  of,  appearance  of, 
and  society  in,  in  1841,  241-243. 


Washington,  George,  opinion  of  Eben- 
ezer  Webster,  7 ; oration  upon,  127. 

Webster,  Abigail  Eastman,  second 
wife  of  Ebenezer  and  mother  of 
Daniel,  8 ; assents  to  Ezekiel’s  going 
to  college,  24. 

Webster,  Daniel.  Birth,  delicacy, 
friendship  with  old  sailor,  9 ; at  the 
district  schools,  10 ; reads  to  the 
teamsters,  reads  books  in  circulat- 
ing library,  11 ; at  Exeter  Academy, 
with  Dr.  Wood,  learns  that  he  is  to 
go  to  college,  12  ; enters  Dartmouth 
College,  13  ; sacrifices  made  to  him 
in  childhood,  14  ; Ezekiel  lends  him 
money,  manner  of  accepting  devo- 
tion of  those  about  him,  15  ; studies 
and  scholarship,  16,  17  ; opinions  of 
fellow  students ; his  general  conduct, 
18 ; eloquence  and  appearance  in 
college,  19  ; edits  newspaper,  writes 
verses,  20  ; oration  at  Hanover,  20- 
22 ; other  orations  in  college,  begins 
study  of  law,  23 ; obtains  his  fath- 
er’s consent  to  Ezekiel’s  going  to 
college,  24 ; teaches  school  at  Frye- 
burg,  25 ; conduct  and  appearance 
at  Fryeburg,  26  ; delivers  oration  at 
Fryeburg  ; returns  to  Salisbury  and 
studies  law,  27  ; goes  to  Boston  and 
is  admitted  to  Mr.  Gore’s  office,  28  ; 
sees  leaders  of  Boston  bar,  29 ; ap. 
pointed  clerk  of  his  father’s  court, 
30  ; declines  the  office,  31 ; opens  an 
office  at  Boscawen  ; moves  to  Ports- 
mouth, 32 ; early  habit  of  debt,  33 ; 
first  appearance  in  court,  34 ; early 
manner,  37 ; described  by  Mason, 
opinion  of  Mason’s  ability,  38  ; value 
of  Mason’s  example,  40  ; married  to 
Miss  Grace  Fletcher,  at  Salisbury, 
41 ; home  in  Portsmouth,  popular- 
ity, mimicry,  conservatism  in  re- 
ligion and  politics,  42  ; moderate 
and  liberal  Federalist,  43 ; gradual 
entrance  into  politics,  “appeal  to 
old  Whigs,”  speeches  at  Salisbury 
and  Concord,  pamphlet  on  embargo, 
44;  line  of  argument  against  embargo, 
“The  State  of  our  Literature,” 
speech  at  Portsmouth,  1812,  45 ; 
character  of  opposition  to  war  in 
this  speech,  46,  47  ; writes  the 
“ Rockingham  Memorial,”  48  ; elect- 
ed to  Congress,  placed  on  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations,  49; 
introduces  resolutions  on  French 
decrees , votes  steadily  with  his 
party,  50  ; dropped  from  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  tries  to  ob. 
tain  debate  on  his  resolutions,  51; 
strong  speech  against  Enlistment 


INDEX. 


369 


Bill,  52 ; speech  on  repeal  of  em- 
bargo, replies  to  Calhoun,  54;  re- 
marks on  double  duties,  55  ; charac- 
ter of  these  speeches,  56 ; superior- 
ity to  other  speakers  in  Congress, 
57 ; views  as  to  Hartford  Conven- 
tion, 5S ; votes  against  war  taxes, 
59 ; partisanship,  calls  on  Mr.  Mad- 
ison, 60 ; conversational  manner  in 
debate,  61 ; takes  a leading  part  in 
debate  on  establishment  of  bank, 
181-^15,  62  ; power  of  his  argument 
against  irredeemable  paper,  63 ; 
opinion  of  fourteenth  Congress,  64  ; 
speech  against  Bank  Bill  in  session 
of  1815-16,  65 ; votes  against  Bank 
Bill,  introduces  specie  resolutions, 
carries  them  66  ; challenged  by  Ran- 
dolph, 67 ; votes  for  internal  improve- 
ments, retires  from  public  life, 68;  re- 
moval to  Boston,  success  in  Supreme 
Court  of  United  States,  69  ; grief  at 
the  death  of  his  daughter  Grace,  70  ; 
position  on  leaving  Congress,  71  ; 
reception  in  Boston,  72 ; impor- 
tance of  period  upon  which  he  then 
entered,  73 ; consulted  by  John 
"Wlieelock  on  troubles  with  trustees, 
76 ; refuses  to  appear  before  legis- 
lative committee  for  Wheelock,  and 
goes  over  to  side  of  trustees,  his  ex- 
cuse, 77  ; advises  efforts  to  soothe 
Democrats  and  circulation  of  ru- 
mors of  founding  a new  college,  78 ; 
joins  Mason  and  Smith  in  re-argu- 
ment at  Exeter,  79;  anger  at  Bart- 
lett’s attack,  fine  argument  at  Exe- 
ter, 80  ; relies  for  success  on  general 
principles,  and  has  but  little  faith 
in  doctrine  of  impairing  obligation 
of  contracts,  81,  82  ; gives  but  little 
space  to  this  doctrine  in  his  argu- 
ment at  Washington,  83 ; raises 
money  in  Boston  to  defray  ex- 
penses of  college  case,  84 ; adds 
but  little  to  argument  of  Mason 
and  Smith,  85 ; “ something  left 
out”  in  report  of  his  argument, 
86 ; dexterous  argument,  appeal  to 
political  sympathies  of  Marshall, 
87  ; depicts  Democratic  attack  on 
the  college,  88 ; description  of  con- 
cluding passage  of  his  argument, 
89-91 ; moves  for  judgment  nunc 
pro  tunc , 96 ; true  character  of 
success  in  this  case,  97,  98 ; argu- 
ment in  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  99 ; in 
Ogden  vs.  Saunders  and  other  cases, 
100 ; in  Girard  will  case,  101,  102 ; 
nature  of  his  religious  feeling,  103  ; 
argument  in  Rhode  Island  case,  104 ; 
attracts  audiences  even  to  legal  ar- 

24 


guments,  anecdote  of  Mr.  Bos- 
wortli,  105 ; skill  in  seizing  vital 
points,  106 ; capacity  for  using 
others,  early  acknowledgment,  la- 
ter ingratitude,  107  ; refusal  to  ac- 
knowledge Judge  Story’s  assistance, 
108  ; comparative  standing  as  a law- 
yer, 109 ; leader  of  conservative 
party  in  Massachusetts  Convention, 
111 ; speech  on  abolition  of  religious 
test,  112  ; on  property  qualification 
for  the  Senate,  113,  115 ; on  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Judiciary,  116 ; 
Plymouth  oration,  117  ; manner  and 
appearance,  118 ; fitness  for  occa- 
sional oratory,  120 ; great  success 
at  Plymouth,  121,  122 ; improve- 
ment in  first  Bunker  Hill  oration, 
quality  of  style,  124 ; ore  Mon  on 
Adams  and  Jefferson,  125 ; sup- 
posed speech  of  John  Adams,  126 ; 
oration  before  Mechanics  Institute, 
other  orations,  127  ; oration  on  lay- 
ing corner-stone  of  addition  to  cap- 
itol,  128 ; reelected  to  Congress, 
129 ; political  position  in  1823,  130 ; 
placed  at  head  of  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, 131  ; speech  on  revolution 
in  Greece,  132 ; its  objects  and 
purposes,  133,  134;  withdraws  his 
resolutions,  success  of  his  speech, 
135 ; speech  against  tariff  of  1824, 
defends  Sipreme  Court,  136  ; speech 
on  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  137  ; 
carries  through  the  Crimes  Act, 
138 ; carries  Judiciary  Bill  through 
House,  lost  in  Senate,  139 ; supports 
mission  to  Panama  Congress,  140, 
141 ; supports  reference  of  message 
on  Georgia  and  Creek  Indians,  142  ; 
tone  of  his  speech,  143 ; elected  sen- 
ator from  Massachusetts,  144  ; early 
inclination  to  support  Calhoun,  op- 
position to  Jackson  and  Adams,  145  ; 
to  Clay,  relations  with  Crawford, 146; 
on  committee  to  examine  charges  of 
Edwards,  defends  Crawford,  147 ; 
wishes  Mr.  Mason  to  be  Attorney- 
General,  and  English  mission  for 
himself,  takes  but  little  part  in 
election,  148 ; interview  with  Mr. 
Adams,  148,  149  ; friendly  relations 
with  Mr.  Adams,  supports  adminis- 
tration, 149  ; real  hostility  to,  feels 
that  he  is  not  properly  recognized, 
and  accepts  senatorship,  150 ; inac- 
tive in  election,  allied  with  Clay 
and  Adams,  and  founders  of  Whig 
party,  151  ; Spanish  claims,  first 
sees  Marshfield,  English  friends, 
Niagara,  oration  at  Bunker  Hill, 
and  eulogy  on  Adams  and  Jeffer* 


370 


INDEX. 


aon,  152,  153  ; grief  on  death  of  his 
wife,  154 ; appearance  in  Washing- 
ton after  death  of  his  wife,  155 ; 
speech  on  bill  for  revolutionary  of- 
ficers, on  tariff  of  1828,  156,  165 ; 
free-trade  Federalist  when  he  en- 
tered Congress,  157 ; remarks  in 
1814  on  protective  duties,  158,  150  ; 
advocates  modifications  in  tariff  of 
1816,  160 ; speech  at  Faneuil  Hall 
against  tariff  in  1820, 160-163;  speech 
against  tariff  of  1824,  163-165  ; 
reasons  for  his  change  of  position 
as  to  tariff  in  1828,  166,  167  ; speech 
at  Boston  dinner,  167  ; character  of 
this  change  of  policy,  and  question 
of  consistency,  168 ; treats  free 
trade  or  protection  as  a question 
of  expediency,  169 ; change  on  the 
constitutional  question,  170 ; op- 
poses Jackson’s  removals  from  of- 
fice, 172 ; first  speech  on  Foote’s 
resolution,  173  ; second  speech,  re- 
ply to  Hayne,  174 ; argument  on 
nullification,  175 ; weak  places  in 
his  argument,  176  ; intention  in  this 
speech,  definition  of  the  Union  as  it 
is,  179, 180  ; scene  of  the  speech  and 
feeling  at  the  North,  181  ; opening 
sentence  of  the  speech,  182 ; man- 
ner and  appearance  on  that  day, 
1S3 ; variety  in  the  speech,  184 ; 
sarcasm,  defence  of  Massachusetts, 
185 ; character  of  his  oratory,  186, 
187  ; of  his  imagination,  188 ; of  his 
style,  189  ; preparation  of  speeches, 
190 ; physical  appearance  and  at- 
tributes, 191,  192  ; manner  with  and 
effect  on  children,  193  ; effect  of  his 
appearance  in  England,  194 ; anec- 
dotes of  effect  produced  by  his  look 
and  appearance,  195  ; constitutional 
indolence,  needs  something  to  excite 
him  in  later  life,  anecdote,  196  ; de- 
fence of  Prescott,  197  ; Goodridge 
case,  White  case,  greatness  of  argu- 
ment in  latter,  198 ; opening  pas- 
sage compared  with  Burke’s  de- 
scription of  Hyder  Ali’s  invasion, 
199 ; as  a jury  lawyer,  200 ; com- 
pared in  eloquence  with  other  great 
orators,  201, 202  ; perfect  taste  of  as 
an  orator,  203  ; rank  as  an  orator, 
204  ; change  made  by  death  of  Eze- 
kiel and  by  second  marriage,  205 ; 
general  effect  on  the  country  of  re- 
ply to  Hayne,  206 ; ambition  for 
presidency  begins,  desires  consoli- 
dation of  party,  no  chance  for 
nomination,  207 ; advocates  re- 
newal of  bank  charter,  208;  over- 
throws doctrines  of  bank  veto, 


2C9 ; opposes  confirmation  of  Van 
Buren  as  minister  to  England,  210  ; 
defeats  confirmation,  211 ; predicts 
trouble  from  tariff,  212  ; sees  proc- 
lamation, wholly  opposed  to  Clay’s 
first  Compromise  Bill,  213;  sustains 
the  administration  and  sup  poits  the 
Force  Bill,  214;  reply  to  Calhoun, 
“ the  Constitution  not  a compact,” 
216,  217  ; opposes  the  Ccmp remise 
Bill,  218  ; Benton’s  view  of,  219, 220  ; 
impossible  t^  ally  l.imself  with  Jack- 
son,  221  ; jcins  Clay  and  Calhoun, 
222;  soundness  of  his  oppo;  ition  to 
compromise,  223;  falls  in  behind 
Clay,  tour  in  the  West,  nominated 
by  Massachusetts  for  presidency, 
224  ; no  chance  of  success,  effect  of 
desire  for  presidency,  225 ; alliance 
with  Clay  and  Calhoun,  opinion  as  to 
the  bank,  226  ; presents  Boston  reso- 
lutions against  President’s  course, 
227  ; speaks  sixty-four  times  on  bank 
during  session,  228;  speech  on  the 
“protest,”  229;  attitude  in  regard 
to  troubles  with  France,  230  ; defeats 
Fortification  Bill,  speech  on  execu- 
tive patronage,  231  ; defeat  of  Ben- 
ton’s first  expunging  resolution,  232  ; 
defence  of  his  course  on  Fortification 
Bill,  233  ; speech  on  “Specie  Circu- 
lar ” and  against  expunging  resolu- 
tion, 234  ; desires  to  retire  from  the 
Senate  but  is  persuaded  to  remain, 
235  ; efforts  to  mitigate  panic,  236  ; 
visits  England,  hears  of  Harrison’s 
nomination  for  presidency,  237  ; en- 
ters campaign,  speech  of  1837  at  Nib- 
lo’s  Garden,  238 ; speeches  during 
campaign,  239;  accepts  secretary- 
ship of  state,  240;  modifies  Harri- 
son’s inaugural,  “kills  proconsuls,” 
244 ; De  Bacourt’s  account  of,  at 
reception  of  diplomatic  corps,  245, 
246 ; opinion  as  to  general  conduct 
of  difficulties  with  England,  248  ; 
conduct  of  McLeod  affair,  249  ; dep- 
recates quarrel  with  Tyler,  250  ; de- 
cides to  remain  in  the  cabinet,  252  ; 
conduct  of  the  Creole  case,  253 ; 
management  of  Maine  and  Massa- 
chusetts, settles  boundary,  254 ; ob- 
tains “ Cruising  Convention,”  and 
extradition  clause,  letter  on  im- 
pressment, 255 ; character  of  nego- 
tiation and  its  success,  256  ; treaty 
signed,  “the  battle  of  the  maps,” 
continues  in  cabinet,  257 ; reluses 
to  be  forced  from  cabinet,  258 ; 
speech  in  Faneuil  Hall  defending 
his  course,  258 ; character  of  this 
speech,  explains  “Cruising  Conven* 


INDEX. 


371 


tion,”259  ; refutes  Cass,  other  labors 
in  State  Department,  260 ; resigns 
secretaryship  of  state  and  resumes 
his  profession,  261 ; anxiety  about 
Texas  and  Liberty  party,  supports 
Clay,  262 ; reelected  to  the  Senate, 
263  ; efforts  to  maintain  peace  with 
England,  speech  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
265 ; letter  to  Macgregor  suggesting 
forty-ninth  parallel,  opposition  to 
war  in  the  Senate,  266 ; attacked  by 
Ingersoll  and  Dickinson,  267 ; 
speech  in  defence  of  Ashburton 
treaty,  268;  remarks  on  President 
Polk’s  refusal  of  information  as  to 
secret  service  fund,  careless  in  his 
accounts,  269 ; absent  when  Mexi- 
can war  declared,  course  on  war 
measures,  tour  in  the  South,  270 ; 
denounces  acquisition  of  territory, 
death  of  his  son  and  daughter,  visit 
to  Boston  for  funerals,  271 ; re- 
fuses nomination  for  vice-presi- 
dency and  opposes  the  nomination 
of  Taylor,  272  ; has  only  a few  votes 
in  convention  of  1848, 273  ; disgusted 
with  the  nomination  of  Taylor,  de- 
cides to  support  it,  speech  at  Marsh- 
field, 274 ; course  on  slavery,  draws 
Boston  memorial.  275;  character  of 
this  memorial,  276 ; attack  on  slave- 
trade  in  Plymouth  oration,  277 ; 
compared  with  tone  on  same  sub- 
ject in  1850,  278  ; silence  as  to  slav- 
ery in  Panama  speech,  279 ; treat- 
ment of  slavery  in  reply  to  Hayne, 
279,  280 ; treatment  of  anti-slavery 
petitions  in  1836,  281 ; treatment  of 
slavery  in  speech  at  Niblo’s  Garden, 
282,  283;  treatment  of  anti-slavery 
petitions  in  1837,  284;  views  as  to 
abolition  in  the  District,  285 ; atti- 
tude toward  the  South  iu  1838,  286 ; 
adopts  principle  of  Calhoun’s  En- 
terprise resolutions  in  Creole  case, 
287  : attempts  to  arouse  the  North 
as  to  annexation  of  Texas,  288  ; ob- 
jections to  admission  of  Texas,  280 ; 
absent  when  Mexican  war  declared, 
290  ; views  on  Wilmot  Proviso,  291  ; 
speech  at  Springfield,  292 ; speech 
on  objects  of  Mexican  war,  293 ; 
Oregon,  speech  on  slavery  in  the 
territories,  294;  speech  on  Oregon 
Bill,  and  at  Marshfield  on  Taylor’s 
nomination,  295  ; adheres  to  Whigs, 
declares  his  belief  in  Free  Soil  prin- 
ciples, 296;  effort  to  put  slavery 
aside,  297 ; plan  for  dealing  with 
slavery  in  Mexican  conquests,  re- 
futes Calhoun’s  argument  as  to  Con- 
stitution in  territories,  298  ; Clay’s 


plan  of  compromise  submitted  to, 
300;  delivers  7th  of  March  speech, 
301 ; analysis  of  7th  of  March  speech, 
301,  302  ; speech  disapproved  at  the 
North,  303 ; previous  course  as  to 
slavery  summed  up,  change  after  re- 
ply to  Hayne,  304 ; grievances  of 
South,  305 ; treatment  of  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  305-308  ; course  in  regard 
to  general  policy  of  compromise ; 
merits  of  that  policy,  308-312 ; views 
as  to  danger  of  secession,  313,  314 ; 
necessity  of  compromise  in  1850, 315 ; 
attitude  of  various  parties  in  regard 
to  slavery,  316  ; wishes  to  finally  set- 
tle slavery  question,  317  ; treatment 
of  extension  of  slavery,  318 ; disre- 
gards use  of  slaves  in  mines,  319  ; in- 
consistent on  this  point,  321 ; inter- 
views with  Giddings  and  Free-Soil- 
ers,  322  ; real  object  of  speech,  323  ; 
immediate  effect  of  speech  in  pro- 
ducing conservative  reaction,  324 ; 
compliments  Southern  leaders  in 
7th  of  March  speech,  325,  326 ; efforts 
to  sustain  the  compromise  measures, 
bitter  tone,  327  ; attacks  anti-slavery 
movement,  328,  329  ; uneasiness  evi- 
dent, 330;  motives  of  speech,  330- 
332  ; accepts  secretaryship  of  state, 
333;  writes  the  Hiilsemann  letter, 
334 ; treatment  of  Kossuth  and 
Hungarian  question,  335  ; of  other 
affairs  of  the  department,  336 ; 
hopes  for  nomination  for  presidency, 
337  ; belief  that  he  will  be  nomi- 
nated, 338  ; loss  of  the  nomination, 
339 ; refuses  to  support  Scott,  340 ; 
character  of  such  a course,  341-343 ; 
declining  health,  accident  at  Marsh- 
field, 343  ; return  to  Marshfield,  sinks 
steadily,  344  ; death  and  burial,  345  ; 
disappointments  in  his  later  years, 
346 ; his  great  success  in  life,  347 ; 
his  presence,  348 ; character  of  his 
intellect,  348  , 349;  dignity,  349; 
character  as  a statesman,  350 ; sense 
of  humor,  351 ; charm  in  conversa- 
tion, 352  ; large  nature,  love  of  large 
things,  353  ; affection,  generosity, 
treatment  of  friends,  354 ; admired 
but  not  generally  popular,  355  ; dis- 
trust of  his  sincerity,  355,  356 ; fail- 
ings, indifference  to  debt,  356 ; ex- 
travagance, 357  ; attacked  on  money 
matters,  358  ; attitude  toward  New 
England  capitalists  and  in  regard  to 
sources  of  money,  359  ; moral  force 
not  equal  to  intellectual,  360  ; devo- 
tion to  Union,  place  in  history,  361- 
362. 

Webster,  Ebenezer,  born  in  Kingston, 


372 


INDEX. 


enlists  in  c<  Rangers,”  5 ; settles  at 
Salisbury,  6 ; marries  again,  serves 
in  Revolution,  7 ; physical  and  men- 
tal qualities,  8 ; made  a judge,  11 ; 
resolves  to  educate  Daniel,  12  ; con- 
sents to  let  Ezekiel  go  to  college, 
24  ; disappointment  at  Daniel's  re- 
fusal of  clerkship,  31  ; death,  32 ; 
strong  federalist,  anecdote,  43. 

Webster,  Edward,  Major,  death  of, 
270. 

Webster,  Ezekiel,  anecdote  of  his 
lending  Daniel  money,  15  ; obtains 
consent  of  his  father  to  go  to  col- 
lege, 24 ; teaches  school  in  Boston, 
28  ; admitted  to  bar,  32  : strong  Fed- 
eralist, 43  ; death  of,  205. 

Webster,  Grace,  daughter  of  Daniel 
Webster,  illness,  65 ; death,  70. 

Webster,  Grace  Fletcher,  first  wife  of 
Mr.  Webster ; marriage  and  char- 
acter, 41,  42  ; death,  154. 

Webster,  Thomas,  first  of  name,  5. 

Wheelock,  Eleazer,  founder  of  Dart- 
mouth College,  75. 

Wheelock,  John,  succeeds  his  father 
as  President  of  Dartmouth  College, 
75  ; begins  war  on  trustees  ; con- 
sults Mr.  Webster,  76;  writes  to 
Webster  to  appear  before  legisla- 
tive committee,  77 ; removed  from 
presidency  and.  goes  over  to  the 
Democrats,  78  ; originator  of  the 
doctrine  of  impairing  obligation  of 
contracts.  81  \ fees  Mr.  Webster, 
359. 


Whig  Party,  origin  of,  151  ; condition 
in  1836,  235 ; nominate  Harrison, 
237,  238  ; carries  the  country  in  1840, 
240  ; anger  against  Tyler,  250  ; mur- 
murs against  Mr.  Webster’s  re- 
maining in  Tyler’s  cabinet,  257  ; at- 
tacks of,  in  Massachusetts,  upon  Ty- 
ler, 258 ; silence  about  slavery  and 
Texas,  are  defeated  in  1844,  262, 
289  ; nominate  Taylor,  273  ; indiffer- 
ence to  Mr.  Webster’s  warning  as  to 
Texas,  288  ; attitude  in  regard  to 
slavery  in  1850,  316  ; nomination  of 
Scott  by,  in  1852,  338-343. 

White,  Stephen,  case  of  murder  of, 
Webster’s  speech  for  prosecution, 
198  if.  ; Webster’s  fee  in,  359. 

Wilmot  Proviso,  Mr.  Webster’s  views 
on,  291-293;  embodied  in  Oregon 
Bill,  295 ; shall  it  be  applied  to  New 
Mexico,  299 ; attacked  in  7th  of 
March  speech,  301,  302. 

Wirt,  William,  counsel  for  State  in 
Dartmouth  case  at  Washington,  un- 
prepared, makes  poor  argument,  84, 
91  ; anecdote  of  daughter  of  and 
Mr.  Webster,  193. 

Wood,  Dr.,  of  Boscawen,  Webster’s 
tutor,  12, 13. 

Woodward,  William  H.,  secretary  of 
new  board  of  trustees ; action 
against,  79. 

Wortley,  Mr.  Stuart,  152. 

Yancey,  William  L.,  attack  on  Web- 
ster, 358. 


American  Statesmen. 


A Series  of  Biographies  of  Men  famous  in  the 
Political  History  of  the  United  States.  Edited  by 
John  T.  Morse,  Jr.  Each  volume,  i6mo, 
gilt  top,  gi.25;  half  morocco,  $2.50. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS.  By  John  T.  Morse , Jr. 
ALEXANDER  HAMILTON  By  Henry  Cabot  Lodge. 
JOHN  C.  CALHOUN.  By  Dr.  H.  Von  Holst. 
ANDRE W JACKSON.  By  W.  G.  Sumner. 

JOHN  RANDOLPH.  By  Henry  Adams. 

JAMES  MONROE.  By  D.  C.  Gilman. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  By  John  T.  Morse , Jr. 
DANIEL  WEBSTER.  By  Henry  Cabot  Lodge. 
ALBERT  GALLATIN.  By  John  Austin  Stevens. 
JAMES  MADISON.  By  Sydney  Howard  Gay. 
JOHN  ADAMS.  By  John  T.  Morse , Jr. 

JOHN  MARSHALL.  By  Allan  B.  Magruder. 
SAMUEL  ADAMS.  By  Ja?nes  K.  Hosmer. 
THOMAS  H.  BENTON.  By  Theodore  Roosevelt. 
HENRY  CL  A Y.  By  Carl  Schurz.  2 vols. 

PATRICK  HENRY.  By  Moses  Coit  Tyler. 
GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS.  By  Theodore  Roosevelt. 
MARTIN  VAN  BUREN.  By  Edward M.  Shepard. 
GEORGE  WASHINGTON.  By  H.  C.  Lodge.  2 vols. 
BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN.  By  John  T.  Morse , Jr. 
JOHN  JA  Y.  By  George  Pellew. 

LEWIS  CASS.  By  Andrew  C.  McLaughlin. 
ABRAHAM  LINCOLN.  By  J.  T.  Morse,  Jr.  2 vols. 
Others  to  be  announced  hereafter. 


CRITICAL  NOTICES. 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS.  m”„ 

be  those  of  posterity  we  have  very  little  doubt,  and  he  has  set  an 
admirable  example  to  his  coadjutors  in  respect  of  interesting 
narrative,  just  proportion,  and  judicial  candor.  — New  York 
Evening  Post. 

tta  MTT  THAT  The  biography  of  Mr.  Lodge  is  calm  and 
1 ^ ' dignified  throughout.  He  has  the  virtue  — 

rare  indeed  among  biographers  — of  impartiality.  He  has  done 
his  work  with  conscientious  care,  and  the  biography  of  Ham- 
ilton is  a book  which  cannot  have  too  many  readers.  It  is  more 
than  a biography ; it  is  a study  in  the  science  of  government. — 
St.  Paul  Pioneer  Press. 

/-•at  JTDTTN  Nothing  can  exceed  the  skill  with  which  the 
O i . political  career  of  the  great  South  Carolinian 
is  portrayed  in  these  pages.  The  work  is  superior  to  any  other 
number  of  the  series  thus  far,  and  we  do  not  think  it  can  be  sur- 
passed by  any  of  those  that  are  to  come.  The  whole  discussion 
in  relation  to  Calhoun’s  position  is  eminently  philosophical  and 
just.  — The  Dial  (Chicago). 


JACKSON. 


Professor  Sumner  has  ...  all  in  all,  made 
the  justest  long  estimate  of  Jackson  that  has 
had  itself  put  between  the  covers  of  a book. — New  York 
Times. 


J?  A ATT)  n T P TT  The  book  has  been  to  me  intensely  inter- 
K-™-1  -u  u • esting.  ...  It  is  rich  in  new  facts  and  side 
fights,  and  is  worthy  of  its  place  in  the  already  brilliant  series 
of  monographs  on  American  Statesmen.  — Prof.  Moses  Coit 
Tyler. 


AID  ATR  O E 1°  clearness  of  style,  and  in  all  points  of  liter- 

Ul  xi  tx  . ary  workmanship,  from  cover  to  cover,  the 

volume  is  well-nigh  perfect.  There  are  also  a calmness  of  judg- 
ment, a correctness  of  taste,  and  an  absence  of  partisanship 
which  are  too  frequently  wanting  in  biographies,  and  especially 
in  political  biographies.  — American  Literary  Churchman  (Bal- 
timore). 


jfp  J7JTJ7  j?  C/O  \T  The  book  is  exceedingly  interesting  and 
■T  * ‘ readable.  The  attention  of  the  reader  is 

strongly  seized  at  once,  and  he  is  carried  along  in  spite  of  him- 
self, sometimes  protesting,  sometimes  doubting,  yet  unable  to  lay 
the  book  down.  — Chicago  Standard. 


Ttttq  to  c ye  7?  T be  read  by  students  of  history ; it  will 
ED  S 1 EK.  ke  invaluable  as  a work  of  reference;  it 
will  be  an  authority  as  regards  matters  of  fact  and  criticism  ; it 
hits  the  keynote  of  Webster’s  durable  and  ever-growing  fame ; 
it  is  adequate,  calm,  impartial ; it  is  admirable.  — Philadelphia 
Press. 


C A T T A TTN  R ’s  one  most  carefully  prepared  of 

C * • these  very  valuable  volumes,  . . . abound- 
ing in  information  not  so  readily  accessible  as  is  that  pertaining 
to°men  more  often  treated  by  the  biographer.  . . . The  whole 
work  covers  a ground  which  the  political  student  cannot  afford 
to  neglect. — Boston  Correspondent  Hartford  Courant. 


The  execution  of  the  work  deserves  the  high- 
est praise.  It  is  very  readable,  in  a bright 
and  vigorous  style,  and  is  marked  by  unity  and  consecutiveness 
of  plan.  — The  Nation  (New  York). 

JOHN  ADAMS.  A §ood  Piece  of  work; ; • • dt 

J covers  the  ground  thoroughly,  and 

gives  just  the  sort  of  simple  and  succinct  account  that  is  wanted. 
— Evening  Post  (New  York). 


MADISON. 


j>r  a u fg  A T T Well  done,  with  simplicity,  clearness,  pre- 
cision, and  judgment,  and  in  a spirit  of 
moderation  and  equity.  A valuable  addition  to  the  series.  — 
New  York  Tribune. 


SAMUEL  ADAMS. 


Thoroughly  appreciative  and  sym- 
pathetic, yet  fair  and  critical  . . . 
This  biography  is  a piece  of  good  work  — a clear  and  simple 
presentation  of  a noble  man  and  pure  patriot ; it  is  written  in  a 
spirit  of  candor  and  humanity.  — Worcester  Spy. 


BENTON.  An  'nterest'ng  addition  to  our  political  liter- 
ature, and  will  be  of  great  service  if  it  spread 
an  admiration  for  that  austere  public  morality  which  was  one  of 
the  marked  characteristics  of  its  chief  figure.  — The  Epoch 
(New  York). 


CfA  Y We  have  in  this  life  of  Henry  Clay  a biography  of 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  American  states- 
men, and  a political  history  of  the  United  States  for  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  In  each  of  these  important  and 
difficult  undertakings,  Mr.  Schurzhas  been  eminently  successful. 
Indeed,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  for  the  period  covered, 
we  have  no  other  book  which  equals  or  begins  to  equal  this  life 
of  Henry  Clay  as  an  introduction  to  the  study  of  American  pol- 
itics.— Political  Scie-nce  Quarterly  (New  York). 


JfpppjRY.  Professor  Tyler  has  not  only  made  one  of  the 
best  and  most  readable  of  American  biographies  ; 
he  may  fairly  be  said  to  have  reconstructed  the  life  of  Patrick 
Henry,  and  to  have  vindicated  the  memory  of  that  great  man 
from  the  unappreciative  and  injurious  estimate  which  has  been  * 
placed  upon  it.  — New  York  Evening  Post. 

MO  EE/S  Wr.  Roosevelt  has  produced  an  animated  and 

intensely  interesting  biographical  volume.  . . . 
Mr.  Roosevelt  never  loses  sight  of  the  picturesque  background 
of  politics,  war -governments,  and  diplomacy.  — Magazine  oj 
American  History  (New  York). 


yAN  SUREN.  more  generous,  appreciative,  or  just 

biography,  and  no  more  interesting  or 
philosophical  piece  of  political  history  has  appeared  in  this  valu- 
able series  . . . than  this  absorbing  book.  . . . To  give  any  ad- 
equate idea  of  the  personal  interest  of  the  book,  or  its  intimate 
bearing  on  nearly  the  whole  course  of  our  political  history  would 
be  equivalent  to  quoting  the  larger  part  of  it.  — Brooklyn  Eagle. 

IVASHIN GTON  ^ r-  Lodge  has  written  an  admirable 

biography,  and  one  which  cannot  but 
confirm  the  American  people  in  the  prevailing  e-timate  concern- 
ing the  Father  of  his  Country;  but  its  deepest  and  most  impor- 
tant significance  appears  to  us  to  consist  in  its  testimony  to  the 
exaltation  and  the  uniqueness  of  a character  whose  like  comes 
seldom  to  the  world,  and  only  in  periods  of  great  stress  and  cri- 
sis. — ATew  York  Tribune. 

J7R  A A TKL I A T.  ^as  nianaged  to  condense  the  whole 

mass  of  matter  gleaned  from  all  sources 
into  his  volume  without  losing  in  a single  sentence  the  freedom 
or  lightness  of  his  style  or  giving  his  book  in  any  part  the 
crowded  look  of  an  epitome.  He  has  plenty  of  time  and  plenty 
of  room  for  all  he  wishes  to  say,  and  says  it  in  the  very  best  and 
most  interesting  manner. — The  Independent  (New  York). 

yA  Y.  In  his  long  career  — as  member  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  President  of  Congress,  member  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  Foreign  Secretary,  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States,  governor  of  New  York,  Minister  to  Spain,  spe- 
cial envoy  to  England  — no  breath  of  suspicion  or  doubt  attached 
to  his  fame.  ...  It  is  an  important  addition  to  the  admirable 
series  of  “American  Statesmen,’’  and  elevates  yet  higher  the 
character  of  a man  whom  all  American  patriots  must  delight  to 
honor.  — New  York  Tribune. 

CASS.  Professor  McLaughlin  has  given  us  one  of  the  most 
satisfactory  volumes  in  this  able  and  important  series. 
It  ought  to  be  read  in  the  East  as  well  as  the  West,  but  in  the 
Northwest  it  ought  to  be  read  in  every  hamlet  from  Detroit 
to  Puget  Sound.  The  early  life  of  Cass  was  devoted  to  the 
Northwest,  and  in  the  transformation  which  overtook  it  the 
work  of  Cass  was  the  work  of  a national  statesman.  — New  York 
Times. 

LINCOLN.  Asa  Life  of  Lincoln  it  has  no  competitors  ; as 
a political  history  of  the  Union  side  during  the 
Civil  War,  it  is  the  most  comprehensive,  and,  in  proportion  to 
its  range,  the  most  compact.  — Harvard  Graduates’  Magazine. 


***  For  Sale  by  all  Booksellers.  Sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of 
price  by  the  Publishers, 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY, 

4 Park  St.,  Boston;  ii  East  17TH  St.,  New  York. 


Date  Due 

Mi  \ 

WL  4 yj\j 

35\  ■ 

*•52939 

2 

J...  3.  Cat.  No.  1137 

Duke  University  Libraries 


D0093556 


923.273  W378LF  25650 
Lodge;  Amer. Statesmen 


Daniel  Webater 


923.273  W378LP 


25650 


